Appeal 6003190

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two new dwellings built within residential land after demolition of original dwelling site at [site address] , [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00665/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Winchester City Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The Council has confirmed that the Winchester District Local Plan 2020–2040 (LP) is now adopted. The policies cited in the decision notice have therefore been superseded. Policies D1 and D4 of the LP replace those previously relied upon, and I have determined the appeal on the basis of the newly adopted plan.

The appellant submitted amended plans during the application process following an invitation from the Council to address its design concerns. The revisions were limited to a reduced ridge height and changes to external materials, with the footprint, eaves height and overall design approach remaining largely unchanged. Although the Council did not accept the amendments at application stage, the Council and interested parties have had the opportunity to comment during the appeal process, which the Council has done. The Council’s own description indicates that the revisions do not amount to a substantive departure from the original proposal, and I have no reason to take a different view. As the amendments do not materially alter the nature of the development and no party would be prejudiced, I have determined the appeal on the amended plans.

The Council’s second reason for refusal concerned whether mitigation was required to address recreational disturbance effects on the Solent Special Protection Areas. The appellant argued that the site lies outside the 5.6km Zone of Influence and therefore does not trigger the requirement for mitigation.

The Council has since confirmed that the site is indeed outside the Zone of Influence. No contribution to the [name] is therefore required, and the Council has withdrawn this reason for refusal. As both parties now agree that the site lies beyond the Zone of Influence and that no mitigation is necessary, I have not considered this matter further.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site lies within the settlement boundary of Swanmore. This part of the village contains a varied mix of 1, 1.5 and 2-storey dwellings on plots of differing sizes and proportions. The pattern of development is not uniform, and the immediate surroundings display a distinctly suburban character, particularly around the appeal site.

With the exception of the adjacent property, Blanchards, many of the dwellings in the vicinity along [site address] sit close to their boundaries, including the modestly sized plots opposite the appeal site where spacing between buildings is limited. This prevailing pattern of development creates a compact and varied rhythm. The appeal site therefore does not form part of a notably spacious or sensitive frontage but instead contributes to a tighter, more suburban section of the street.

I recognise that the proposed demolition of the existing dwelling has been a source of considerable local concern. The building is valued by some residents, and its long-standing presence on the site contributes to a sense of familiarity within the community. I have taken these views into account.

However, the evidence before me demonstrates that the building’s architectural and historic interest has been substantially diminished by later alterations, including a large flat-roofed extension that disrupts its original proportions and erodes its vernacular form. Historic England has confirmed that the property does not possess the qualities necessary for statutory listing, and the Council’s Heritage Officer advises that it does not meet the threshold for identification as a non-designated heritage asset. I have no substantive evidence to reach a different

Although the building is locally valued, it does not meet the threshold for heritage significance and there is no policy basis requiring its preservation. Given its altered form and modest contribution to the streetscene, its removal would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the area. Its demolition therefore does not materially conflict with any relevant heritage or design policy and is not a matter that weighs against the proposal.

The proposed dwellings would be two-storey buildings of a scale comparable to several nearby properties, including those opposite and those further along [site address] . Their set-back position from the road would reduce their perceived height and help them sit comfortably within the varied building line. The retention of the established hedge along the [site address] boundary would preserve the green frontage characteristic of this part of Swanmore and would provide effective visual containment, ensuring that the dwellings would not appear visually intrusive.

The material palette, while contemporary, would not be out of keeping given the diversity of finishes already present in the area, including render, cladding, brick, tile hanging and both clay and concrete roof tiles. The staggered orientation of the dwellings would avoid a regimented appearance and would reflect the informal layout of neighbouring properties. The subdivision of the plot would maintain spacing between buildings consistent with the pattern of development along [site address] , including the tighter grain opposite.

The Swanmore Village Design Statement (2019) emphasises the importance of retaining hedgerows and respecting the varied character of the village. The proposal retains the hedge, maintains the green frontage and responds to the mixed architectural context. The development would not erode the identity of Swanmore or introduce a form of development that is out of scale or character with its surroundings.

For these reasons, the proposal would not cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it complies with Policies D1 and D4 of the LP, which require development to be of high-quality design, to reinforce local distinctiveness and to respond positively to the form, scale, massing and materials of the surrounding area.

Interested parties raise concerns regarding the potential for overlooking. The proposed dwellings would be positioned with adequate separation from neighbouring properties, and the orientation of windows would not give rise to harmful loss of privacy. Existing boundary vegetation would further assist in maintaining an acceptable relationship between properties.

Concerns have also been raised regarding potential noise from the proposed air source heat pumps. The Council’s Environmental Protection team confirmed that the equipment would comply with relevant [name] standards and raised no objection. Given the separation between dwellings and the nature of the equipment, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in unacceptable noise impacts.

Several interested parties raise concerns about protected species, the adequacy of ecological survey work and the potential loss of trees. The Council’s Ecologist and Tree Officer raised no objections, subject to conditions securing ecological enhancement, biodiversity net gain and standard tree protection measures. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that any ecological or arboricultural impacts can be appropriately managed through conditions.

Concerns are also raised about parking and traffic. The development would provide on-site parking and turning areas consistent with the Council’s standards, and [site address] is capable of accommodating the modest increase in vehicle movements associated with two dwellings. No highway authority objection has been raised, and I have no reason to conclude that the proposal would result in harm to highway safety or the free flow of traffic.

Drainage has been raised as an issue. No technical objections have been submitted, and there is no evidence before me to indicate that the development could not be satisfactorily drained. Appropriate conditions can secure the necessary details.

Some concerns relate to temporary disturbance during construction. Such effects would be short-lived and are not a reason to withhold planning permission. Other representations refer to the potential impact on property values, but this has little to do with the planning merits of the scheme and does not lead me away from my

None of these other matters, individually or collectively, alter my findings on the main issue or justify withholding planning permission.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council and refined the wording where necessary to ensure that each is precise, enforceable and directly related to the development. As amended, they meet the relevant national policy tests and are necessary to make the development acceptable.

A commencement condition and a condition listing the approved plans are required to provide certainty and to ensure that the development proceeds as assessed.

An arboricultural condition is required to safeguard trees that contribute to local character, including the submission of an [name] and Tree Protection Plan in accordance with BS 5837:2012. A condition securing the implementation and retention of a Biodiversity Enhancement Plan is necessary to secure ecological enhancement.

Conditions requiring boundary treatment details and external materials are necessary to ensure a high-quality appearance and appropriate integration with the surroundings. A drainage condition is required to ensure foul and surface water are satisfactorily managed.

Conditions requiring retention of the existing hedge, approval of external lighting, and provision of parking and turning areas are necessary to maintain the green frontage, protect local character, avoid light spill and ensure safe manoeuvring.

The Council seeks conditions for a Biodiversity Net Gain Plan and a [name] and Monitoring Plan. As the development is already subject to the statutory biodiversity net gain condition, and no substantive evidence has been provided to justify additional controls, I have not imposed those conditions.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos (pl)03, (pl)04, (pl)05 and (pl)07 [name].

The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the mitigation and enhancement measures set out in the approved ecological assessment ([name] – Hiawatha, [address], Swanmore).

The existing hedge boundary along the [site address] frontage shall be retained and protected for the lifetime of the development.

No development, including site clearance, shall commence until an [name] and a Tree Protection Plan have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. All tree protection measures shall accord with BS 5837:2012 (or any updated equivalent). The approved [name] and Tree Protection Plan shall be implemented before development commences and retained for the duration of construction.

No development shall commence until a Biodiversity Enhancement Plan, including the type and location of bat and bird boxes and details of native planting, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan before the dwellings are first occupied and retained as such thereafter.

No development shall take place until a boundary treatment plan, including the position, design and materials of all boundary features, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan before the dwellings are first occupied and retained as such thereafter.

No development above foundation level shall take place until details and samples of all external materials have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and samples and retained as such thereafter.

No development above foundation level shall take place until details of foul and surface water drainage have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the dwellings are first occupied and retained as such thereafter.

Details of any external lighting, including layout, beam orientation, equipment specification and hours of operation, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority before installation. The lighting shall be installed and operated in accordance with the approved details.

The parking and turning areas shown on the approved plans shall be provided before the dwellings are first occupied and shall thereafter be retained for their designated purposes. End of Schedule