Appeal 6002803

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; and, • the integrity of the Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

The appeal site comprises an existing detached dwelling, known as Carillion, set within a large corner plot. The site is located at the junction of [site address] and [address], within a predominantly residential area with detached and semi-detached dwellings.

While there is some variation in the size and shape of plots, the prevailing pattern of development on both [site address] and [address] is of dwellings arranged fronting the road, with consistent building lines and spacing between built development. Dwellings are set back in their plots with frontage vehicular access and parking areas and generous rear gardens. This layout is typical of the [name] identified in the [name] Part 2 ([name], July 2015) and results in a spacious and open character.

Buildings on either side of the [site address] and [address] junction, including Carillion, are set back from the roads, providing visual relief and a sense of openness at the junction. As a result, there is a perception of space on approach from all directions, which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

In this context, the appeal site, in its current form, makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. The relative openness of the corner plot provides a visual gap between built form and reinforces the open character of the area.

The proposal seeks to subdivide the existing plot to introduce an additional detached dwelling. Although the proposed dwelling would generally align with the building line and orientation of development along [site address] , it would be set at an angle to [address] and positioned noticeably closer to that road than the dwellings to the north. Vehicle access and parking would be taken from [address], located to the north of the proposed dwelling and adjacent to its proposed garden area. This arrangement would be at odds with the prevailing layout of development, where dwellings are set back from the road with frontage access and parking areas.

While a physical gap would be provided between the proposed dwelling and Carillion, the separation would be narrower than the spaces between neighbouring buildings in the vicinity. When combined with the dwelling’s proximity to [address], the development would appear cramped and incongruous in the context of the prevailing spacious layout of development.

Furthermore, the proposed dwelling would occupy a substantial proportion of the plot, eroding its existing openness and diminishing its role as a visual buffer at the junction. The cumulative effect of the reduced plot width, constrained layout and siting close to [address] would cause the development to appear shoehorned into the site.

The prominence of the proposed dwelling would be increased by its visibility from both [site address] and [address]. Notwithstanding proposed landscaping and boundary treatments, the loss of existing trees and the introduction of built form in this currently open corner would result in a conspicuous and intrusive addition to the street scene.

In addition, the narrow width of the proposed dwelling would result in an elongated front elevation that appears stretched to fit the restricted plot. The dwelling would be noticeably narrower than the surrounding detached houses along [site address] , which would further the incongruity of the proposed dwelling within the established character of the street.

The appellant’s [name] (June 2025) includes images of other dwellings which have been built following the subdivision of existing residential plots. There is limited information provided on each of these examples. However, from what is provided, these sites have materially different characteristics and relationships to their surroundings, to that of the appeal site. I therefore do not find any of the examples to be directly comparable to the appeal proposal, which I have determined on its own merits. As such, the examples cited do not outweigh the site-specific harm identified in this case.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would conflict with Policies EP3 and H9 of the South Bucks District Local Plan 1999 (the LP) and Policy SP6 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan (the NP) 2025. Taken together, these policies seek, amongst other things, new development that is of a scale, layout and siting which is compatible with the character of the site and locality.

The appeal site is located within 5.6 kilometres of the [name] boundary, which is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The SAC is a European site designated under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) which impose a duty on the competent authority to consider whether the development would have a significant effect, either alone or in combination with other projects, on the conservation objectives of the site, within the framework of an appropriate assessment.

The SAC is designated due to the importance of its habitats under [name] of the [name]. This includes Atlantic acidophilus beech forests with Ilex and Taxus in the shrub layer (Quercion robori petraeae or IliciFagenion), and Beech forests on acid soils. It is comprised of two main areas: to the south is a wooded common and public open apace; and to the north is private woodland.

The Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy Supplementary Planning Document, adopted November 2020 ([name]) sets out that increased public access and disturbance, as a result of new development, can have an impact on the nature conservation interest of the SAC. As the proposal would result in an additional residential unit, it would increase the local population and would likely lead to additional recreational pressure on the SAC. It is therefore likely that alone and in combination with other projects, the proposal would adversely affect its integrity.

The SAMMS SPD includes a mitigation strategy which is intended to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts on the integrity of the SAC to prevent further deterioration of the SAC features as a result of public access and disturbance. This requires a financial contribution for all net new residential development, located between 500 metres and 5.6 kilometres of the SAC boundary, towards projects that directly manage and avoid impacts at source and educate visitors to the SAC.

There is no dispute between the main parties that a financial contribution to mitigate the effects of the development is necessary, in accordance with the [name]. [name] note the appellants’ willingness to complete a legal obligation to secure the financial contribution, an agreement is not before me. Therefore, in the absence of a mechanism to secure the necessary mitigation, following appropriate assessment under the regulations, as the competent authority I am unable to conclude, beyond all reasonable scientific doubt, that the appeal scheme, in combination with other development, would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC.

Consequently, the proposal would fail to accord with the provisions of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) and Core Policy 9 of the South Bucks Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2011 (the CS) which seeks to ensure that development causes no adverse effect on the integrity of the [name].

The proposal would make an efficient use of land and would contribute to housing supply and mix in a location where the principle of new residential development is supported. There would be some economic uplift in the local economy during the construction process and from the future spending of occupiers. However, the contribution of one dwelling to the housing supply would be minimal. As such, these benefits only attract limited weight.

I appreciate that the Council has raised no objection to the proposal’s impact on neighbouring amenities. Nevertheless, this is a neutral point and so it does not outweigh the harm identified above.

I understand that the current proposal is a revised scheme following a previous refusal by the Council. However, this does not materially affect my consideration of the merits of the appeal proposal.

The appeal proposal conflicts with Policies EP3 and H9 of the LP and Policy SP6 of the NP insofar as they seek development which is compatible with the character of the site and locality. The proposal also conflicts with Core Policy 9 of the CS which seeks to ensure that development causes no adverse effect on the integrity of the [name].

Paragraph 225 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) makes it clear that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. In this regard, the Framework indicates new development should be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and it seeks to protect and enhance biodiversity.

The Council has confirmed that it cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. In these circumstances, footnote 8 of the Framework establishes paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged. This states that planning permission should be granted unless the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Footnote 7 confirms the policies referred to are those in the Framework relating to, amongst others, habitats sites and SSSIs.

The Council has not specified the extent of its shortfall, however, as described above, the benefits of a single dwelling would be limited, even taking into account the Framework’s objective of significantly boosting housing land supply. For the reasons set out above, I find that the application of policies in the Framework that protect habitats sites provides a strong reason for refusing the proposal. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this instance.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.