Appeal 6002399

The appeal is dismissed.

During the appeal, the Winchester District Local Plan 2020–2040 (LP) was adopted on 24 March 2026. The LP replaces the previous development plan policies used to determine the application and now forms part of the statutory development plan, attracting full weight in this decision. Both parties were given the opportunity to comment on the implications of the adoption of the LP.

I am aware that the appeal site has an extensive planning history albeit I have not been provided with full details. Notwithstanding this, previous decisions at the site were made under previous development plan policy and I have determined the present appeal on its own merits under current policies.

I acknowledge and agree with the appellant's comments regarding the LPA's appeal statement containing a typographical error in referring to Plot 2 where the context makes clear that Plot 1 was intended.

The main issues are: (i) whether the proposal would be in a suitable location for housing, having regard to the local development strategy for the area; (ii) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and (iii) whether, in the event of harm being identified, there are any other considerations that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan with particular regard to housing land supply and provision of self-build housing, and any other benefits of the proposal.

The appeal site is located outside the settlement boundary of Denmead as defined in the LP and forms part of a countryside gap between the settlement edges. The site comprises two components, Plot 1 on the site of a former barn and milking shed, and Plot 2 on an open field facing [site address] . The application is in outline with all matters reserved bar access.

Policy SP2 of the LP directs new housing to Winchester Town, the [name] and the [name] and Rural Area. In these spatial areas, Policy SP2 expects development to make efficient use of land and prioritise previously developed land in accessible locations within defined settlement boundaries. Policy SP3 restricts development in the countryside outside settlement boundaries to only limited exceptions such as being on an allocated site, having an operational need for a countryside location, re-using a building for employment, tourism accommodation, community use or affordable housing or where there is an exceptional need for affordable, gypsy & traveller and agricultural workers housing. Policy 1 of the Denmead Neighbourhood Plan 2011–2031 (DNP) requires proposals outside the settlement boundary to accord with development plan policies relating to the countryside.

I acknowledge there are services and facilities within a relatively short distance accessible by modes other than private car, and that the site adjoins a small cluster of existing dwellings. Nonetheless, the proposed development does not meet any of the exceptions for countryside development set out in the LP.

I also note that the site was part of a wider parcel of land assessed through the Council's Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) process and was identified as being relatively unconstrained. However, to date the site has not been allocated in the LP or the emerging review of the DNP. The site being assessed in the SHELAA, therefore, does not provide any justification for the site’s location in countryside outside of a defined settlement boundary.

To conclude, the proposal does not fall within any of the LP’s exceptions for development in the countryside. The proposal would, therefore, not be in a suitable location for housing having regard to the spatial strategy of the LP and is contrary to Policies SP2 and SP3 of the LP and Policy 1 of the DNP.

The site forms part of an elevated plateau falling steeply southward, characterised by open fields, trees, former fishponds, agricultural buildings including a redundant milking parlour, adjacent dwellings and an electricity pylon.

Plot 1 would not be readily visible from public vantage points due to being partly screened by existing vegetation including TPO trees, boundary enclosures and adjacent buildings. I am also satisfied that the siting of a dwelling on Plot 1 could be designed to avoid harm to nearby trees and any conflict with the electricity pylon. The proposed dwelling would also replace dilapidated agricultural buildings on previously developed land; I acknowledge this as a benefit of the proposal.

The appellant contends that Plot 1 follows the building line of the adjacent buildings and would sit comfortably within the existing cluster of dwellings. I acknowledge the physical adjacency to existing built form, but it remains the case the proposal would not meet any of the limited countryside exceptions in Policy SP3. Proximity to a built cluster is, therefore, not sufficient of itself to justify housing at odds with the LP's spatial strategy. That said, for the reasons stated, the harm to the character and appearance of the countryside from Plot 1 would, in practice, be limited.

Plot 2 would front on to [site address] to the south of [address] and [name]. [name] 1, it does not occupy previously developed land and would be prominently visible from the road. Whilst the appellant contends that Plot 2 would follow an existing ribbon of development along [site address] , the built form along that frontage does not extend to this location. Plot 2 would, therefore, extend residential development into undeveloped open countryside, introducing built form, domestic activity and lighting that would reduce the gap between the northern and southern parts of the settlement.

I acknowledge the appellant contends that Plot 2 could assimilate into the existing cluster, would be around 3.5 metres lower than [name] and boundary screening could be established through planting. The sloping landscape and boundary planting may lessen visual impact but would not adequately mitigate the prominent change that would arise to rural character in this location from developing an open field beyond the established building line. Therefore, even with screening, a dwelling on Plot 2 would still be a prominent addition beyond existing built form that would appear unacceptably out of keeping with the established rural character of the area.

The DNP identifies the application site as falling within a highly sensitive landscape area, which reflects the important role the site plays in maintaining the open countryside gap between the settlement edges. Plot 2 would be positioned in a prominent position within this area and introduce built form that would erode this gap and obstruct views into [name]. This reinforces my conclusion that Plot 2 would cause unacceptable harm to the rural character of the area.

To conclude, while Plot 1 would only cause limited harm in isolation, the introduction of a dwelling on Plot 2 would notably erode and prominently harm the rural character of the area. Consequently, and when the proposal is assessed as a whole as submitted, it would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the countryside contrary to Policies D1, NE9 and NE14 of the LP and Paragraphs 135 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which collectively seek to secure development that is well designed, sympathetic to local character and recognise the intrinsic beauty of the countryside.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan by reason of its location outside the settlement boundary of Denmead contrary to [name] SP2 and SP3 of the LP and Policy 1 of the DNP, and by reason of the unacceptable harm to the rural character and appearance of the area arising principally from Plot 2's encroachment into open countryside, contrary to Policies D1, NE9 and NE14 of the LP. In these circumstances, a grant of planning permission would only be justified where there are other material considerations that outweigh the conflict with the development plan.

The appellant highlights two earlier appeal decisions1 concluding that the Council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. However, the circumstances underpinning those conclusions have materially changed with the adoption of the LP. The arguments that supported those decisions have now been superseded. The LP carries full weight, its housing requirement forms the appropriate basis for calculating five-year supply, and the [name] concluded a five-year supply with buffer would be in place from 1 April 2026. I am therefore satisfied that the Council can demonstrate a five-year supply with buffer at the present time and the presumption in favour of sustainable development under paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is not engaged.

The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (the Act) requires Councils to publish a register of people seeking plots to deliver self-build or custom-built homes. The register is divided into Part 1, for those with a local connection to the area, and Part 2, for all other eligible applicants. The Act establishes a statutory duty to grant sufficient permissions to meet the net demand recorded on Part 1 of the register within each prescribed base period. In respect of Part 2 demand, the duty is only to have regard to that demand when exercising relevant functions.

The appellant contends there is an unmet Part 1 demand of 441 self-build plots and a substantial shortfall in the number of permissions granted to meet this need. This is based on the conclusions in appeal Ref: APP/L1765/W/25/3366702, and absence of any strong evidence to the contrary in that appeal. The appellant also highlights that the correct methodology for identifying self-build demand requires authorities to count entries added during each base period rather than against retrospectively revised figures. [name] agree this is the correct methodology, the evidence base on unmet demand has moved on since appeal decision Ref: 3366702 based on the [name] findings and the LP's subsequent adoption.

The LP Inspector's Report identified, as of October 2024, Part 1 demand of 407 plots against 240 permissions granted since October 2016 when the duty commenced, producing a Part 1 shortfall of 167 plots. A separate Part 2 shortfall of 64 plots was identified, against which the statutory obligation is only to have regard to demand. The Council's updated Self and [name] (PS) of January 2026 records Part 1 demand as 427 plots against 277 permissions granted as at October 2025, producing a current Part 1 shortfall of approximately 150 plots. The Part 2 shortfall of 64 plots is unchanged. The overall trend is one of modest but consistent progress in reducing the Part 1 permissions shortfall.

The appellant maintains there is an unmet need of 441 self-build plots. However, the [name] findings represent the most recent comprehensive and independent assessment of the self-build position in Winchester, reached following full public examination and now embodied in an adopted development plan. In the absence of any new evidence contrary to those conclusions, I am satisfied that the shortfall of permissions to meet demand is now closer to the figures in the LP 1 APP/L1765/W/24/3350662 and APP/L1765/W/24/3347360 [name] and the Council's PS. That said, the shortfall remains sizeable and I give it significant weight.

The LP Inspector was satisfied that approximately 153 plots are likely to come forward through Policy H4 on sites of 50 or more dwellings, with residual demand to be met through windfall permissions based on past trends and with a small projected surplus across the plan period. As such, the [name] was satisfied that the statutory Part 1 duty would likely be met through the plan framework. There is also no evidence before me that windfall permissions on sites that accord with the recently adopted spatial strategy will be insufficient to address any latent unmet demand over the plan period.

The appellant further contends that Policy H4 is inflexible, in that it only applies to sites of 50 or more dwellings, and that the 153 plots identified by the [name] as likely to come forward through that policy will be insufficient to resolve the current shortfall and meet ongoing demand during the plan period to 2040. [name] note the apparent alignment between this figure and the Council’s position on shortfall, the 153 plots represent the [name] estimate of delivery across the full plan period to 2040 rather than within the shorter statutory base periods against which the duty to grant permission falls to be measured.

I, therefore, do not consider that the similarity between figures is wholly conclusive in demonstrating that the statutory Part 1 duty will be met within the required timeframes. Notwithstanding this timing concern, the [name] overall assessment was that the plan framework is likely to meet demand from suitable sites across the plan period. Furthermore, the LP makes no provision for sites outside settlement boundaries to come forward specifically to meet self-build demand. In that context, the contribution of this proposal to addressing the shortfall would be modest and would carry limited weight in the planning balance. The applicants are registered on Part 1 and wish to build locally, which I acknowledge, but this does not alter that conclusion. I return to the planning balance below.

I have had regard to the appellants' personal circumstances, including their local connections, agricultural activities and livestock welfare needs. [name] acknowledge their local ties and long-standing wish to self-build in the area, the evidence does not persuasively demonstrate a functional need for a dwelling at this specific location, nor that those circumstances could only be met here rather than on a policy-compliant site. I, therefore, give limited weight to the personal circumstances in this case.

The appellant has indicated the dwellings would be constructed using modern methods of construction to meet the [name]. [name] acknowledge this as a benefit, sustainable construction is a generally a standard expectation and I attribute limited weight to it in this decision.

I am satisfied that highways, ecology, landscaping, residential amenity, drainage, archaeology and national grid clearances can be suitably addressed by condition and/or reserved matters. The proposal can also be designed to avoid harm to protected trees in accordance with Policy NE15.

I have had regard to the submitted unilateral undertaking intended to secure the development as self-build dwellings and to address nutrient mitigation. Subject to compliance with the undertaking, the development would meet the requirements of Policy NE16 and the Habitats Regulations in respect of nutrient neutrality, and the proposal would deliver genuine self-build dwellings.

I also note that the appellant has requested that planning permission is granted for Plot 1 if the scheme as a whole was found to be unacceptable. [name] 1 would cause only limited harm, the unilateral undertaking is drafted by reference to a scheme of two dwellings throughout including marketing strategy obligations, nutrient mitigation calculations and plot-specific covenants. [name] 1 alone would create material uncertainty as to how those obligations would apply and be enforced. I am therefore not satisfied that the undertaking in its current form provides a sufficiently robust or enforceable basis for granting permission for only part of the development. If the appellant wishes to pursue Plot 1 in isolation, that is a matter for a fresh application to be considered on its own merits.

The development plan is up to date and as there is a five-year housing land supply, no basis for paragraph 11(d) of the Framework to be engaged. I have found that the proposal for housing in the countryside would be at odds with the development plan in respect of the spatial strategy and would result in significant harm to the rural character of the area contrary to several development plan policies. I attribute significant weight to the conflict with the development plan in this decision.

In considering whether material considerations justify a decision other than in accordance with the development plan, the proposal would result in the delivery of two self-build dwellings to help meet identified demand. [name] attribute significant weight to the self-build shortfall as a material consideration, this proposal would make only a very modest contribution to addressing it. Moreover, the Part 1 statutory duty is likely to be substantially met over the plan period through Policy H4, notwithstanding the residual timing uncertainty I have identified. I also attribute limited weight to the benefits of replacing dilapidated agricultural buildings on Plot 1, the sustainability credentials of the proposed construction and the appellant's personal circumstances.

Taken individually and collectively these benefits are insufficient to outweigh the significant conflict with the development plan arising from the location of the proposal outside the settlement boundary and the unacceptable harm to rural character arising principally from Plot 2, and do not amount to material considerations sufficient to justify a decision other than in accordance with the

For the reasons set out above the appeal is dismissed.