Appeal 6003255

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second stage (technical details consent) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The application includes site layout plans and 3d views to demonstrate how the site might be developed. I have treated this information as illustrative.

Permission in principle can be sought for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum net number of dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, permission in principle has been sought for a minimum and maximum of 1 dwelling on the appeal site.

The Council’s decision letter refers to Policy NE05 of the Crookham Village Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan 2016-2032. However, the Council have confirmed that this reference is a drafting error, and that this plan is not relevant to the appeal. I have therefore not taken it into account in my determination.

The main issues are: • whether the development is habitats development and consequently whether the development is exempt from the grant of permission in principle; and • whether the location, proposed land use and amount of development are appropriate at this site.

The appeal site is located at land to the rear of [address]. The site is currently open land bound partly by vegetation. Access to the site is via the farm house yard.

The proposal would involve the erection of 1 dwelling on the site, with the creation of a new access point off [site address] .

Article 5B(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended) (the Order) states that permission in principle cannot be granted for development which is habitats development. The Order defines this as development which is likely to have a significant effect on a European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) and is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site; and for which the competent authority has not given consent, permission, or other authorisation in accordance with regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations).

Where a development which is seeking permission in principle would have a likely significant effect on a European site, the competent authority must undertake an appropriate assessment to determine whether the development would adversely affect the integrity of the protected site. The appropriate assessment can include consideration of mitigation measures which could be delivered to ensure that any effects are avoided, but the competent authority must be satisfied that such measures would be appropriately secured to ensure certainty that they will occur. If the appropriate assessment concludes that the development would adversely affect the integrity of the protected site, it would be classed as habitats development and therefore would be exempted from the grant of permission in principle.

The appeal site lies within the 5km zone of influence of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA), which also incorporates part of the Bramshill Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The SPA supports important breeding populations of a number of birds of lowland heathland, especially nightjars, woodlarks and Dartford warblers which are the qualifying features which justify the designation of the SPA. The SPA’s conservation objectives aim to ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the [name], by maintaining or restoring (amongst other things) the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features, the population of each of the qualifying features, and the distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

It has been established that all net new residential development within the zone of influence - when considered either alone or in combination with other plans and projects - is likely to have a significant effect on the SPA, resulting from recreational pressure and urbanisation impacts, for example cat predation. The proposal would create a net gain of 1 dwelling and therefore would be likely to have a significant effect on the SPA. As a result, I must undertake an appropriate assessment as the competent authority, in accordance with the Habitats Regulations.

Policy NBE3 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) 2032 (the Local Plan), Saved Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan - [name] for the [name] 2009 (the RSS), and the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Delivery Framework (2009) (the SPA Delivery Framework) require, amongst other things, mitigation measures for all net new dwellings within the SPA zone of influence. Such measures must be delivered prior to occupation and in perpetuity and be based on a combination of [name] and Monitoring (SAMM) and the provision and maintenance of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG).

SANGs are semi-natural public open spaces that mitigate the impact of new homes on the SPA by providing land that can be used for recreation as an alternative to visiting the SPA. SAMM refers to measures undertaken to reduce the impact of visitors on the SPA by promoting the use of SANG, providing on site wardens and a SPA education programme, and undertaking monitoring of both visitors and bird populations.

Natural England have provided comments on the application, noting that the proposed development has the potential to have a harmful effect on the SPA through increased recreational pressure when considered either alone or in combination with other plans and projects. Natural England highlight that measures are in place (i.e. SANG and SAMM) to manage potential impacts, which they consider will be effective in preventing adverse impacts on the integrity of the SPA. Providing the appropriate assessment concludes that the measures can be secured, it is likely that Natural England will be satisfied that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA in relation to recreational disturbance.

The appellant has provided a technical note (dated 3 December 2025) which suggests several on-site biodiversity mitigation measures to address the impacts on the SPA. However, it has not been made clear how these measures would mitigate the likely significant effects on the SPA, and such measures would not be consistent with local policy, which requires mitigation to be provided through SANG and SAMM. Notwithstanding this, I am not provided with any mechanism to secure the on-site biodiversity measures, meaning I cannot be certain they would be delivered in any event.

In conclusion, to grant permission in principle, I must be satisfied beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that any adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA would be avoided. Without appropriate mitigation measures relating to SANG and SAMM being secured, I cannot be certain that this is the case. As the competent authority, I therefore find that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA, which conflicts with the Habitats Regulations and would not be in accordance with Policy NBE3 of the Local Plan, Saved Policy NRM6 of the RSS and the SPA Delivery Framework.

The proposal therefore constitutes habitats development which is exempted from permission in principle under Article 5B(1) of the Order. Consequently, permission in principle cannot be granted.

Despite this conclusion, I will nevertheless consider the other matters in dispute, for completeness.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted.

The appeal site is located outside the settlement boundaries, albeit it is adjacent to the Eversley and [site address] Settlement. Access to the site via public transport is limited and infrequent and there are no local services within a convenient walking distance. Further, pedestrian access would not be a genuine alternative option given the lack of pavements and street lighting in the vicinity. This means that future occupiers would be entirely reliant on private vehicles, and therefore this location could not be reasonably defined as sustainable.

The main parties agree that the proposal would not constitute isolated development having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework) and relevant case law, and I have no reason to disagree. I note that the proposal is close to existing housing, but this does not provide justification for the proposed land use, particularly given the existing housing falls within a settlement boundary.

Access to the site is currently via the farm house yard. However, I noted on my site visit that the site could potentially be accessed via another route which would be utilised to provide the means of access to the proposed new dwelling.

Based on the evidence before me and my observations from my site visit, I am not persuaded that the appeal site is so intimately connected with [address] such that it forms part and parcel of the building. Therefore, I do not consider that the site falls within the curtilage of the farm house.

I saw evidence on my site visit that part of the appeal site may have been developed in the past. This part of the site has a different appearance to the wider site and adjacent land, although it does blend into the wider landscape and reads as green space when viewed from different locations in the vicinity. The definition of previously developed land in Annex 2 of the Framework excludes land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape, as is the case with the appeal site. Therefore, the appeal site would not constitute previously developed land considered in isolation.

With regard to the amount of development proposed, the appeal site would be suitable for the provision of 1 residential dwelling which would constitute an efficient use of land consistent with paragraph 129 of the Framework.

In conclusion, the proposal would not be in accordance with Policies SD1, SS1, and NBE1 of the Local Plan and Policy GEN 1 of the [name] of the Hart District Council Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006. These policies, taken together, seek to focus development within defined settlements, or on previously developed land in sustainable locations; and are clear that development proposals outside settlement policy boundaries will only be supported where they address specific criteria, which includes where they are located on suitable previously developed land appropriate for the proposed use. The proposal is not located within a settlement, nor is it previously developed land, and would therefore not be in a suitable location and would not be an appropriate land use. However, the amount of development proposed would be acceptable.

The proposal would also be inconsistent with paragraphs 109, 110 and 115 of the Framework, which seek to actively manage patterns of growth in support of key transport objectives which seek, amongst other things, to promote sustainable transport modes, aim to avoid and mitigate adverse environmental effects linked to transport, and seek to ensure safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users.

The proposal accords with policies in the Development Plan and the Framework which encourage the supply of new housing and would assist in addressing the Council’s current housing land supply shortfall. The Framework is clear that small sites can make an important contribution to housing delivery, therefore I ascribe moderate weight to the provision of one additional home.

The proposal would have some economic benefits relating to the construction industry and increased local spending. However, such benefits have not been quantified and therefore would only have limited weight.

The proposed dwelling is described as self-build. However, there is no mechanism before me to secure self-build, therefore I have not taken it into account in my determination as there is no guarantee that this would be delivered.

The appellant has raised personal circumstances relating to caring responsibilities and high local housing costs which means they are priced out of purchasing a property in the local area. [name] sympathise with the appellant’s circumstances, I am not provided with evidence that sets out specific details of the situation or to show that the development is the only reasonable option available. Personal circumstances should be balanced carefully against general planning matters because the effect of the development would be likely to remain long after the personal circumstances no longer apply.

PPG states that there may be exceptional occasions where development that would not normally be permitted may be justified on planning grounds because of who would benefit from the permission. However, in such circumstances, this would need to be secured through condition. As this application is for permission in principle, I am unable to impose conditions. Therefore, even if I were persuaded that personal circumstances justified the grant of permission in principle, there would be no mechanism to limit the benefit to the appellant.

As such, taking all relevant matters into account, I have given only very limited weight to the personal circumstances identified by the appellant.

Several matters were raised by interested parties, including the potential for impacts relating to highways, drainage and sewerage capacity, character and appearance, ecology and construction. As the appeal is being dismissed for other reasons, these matters do not need to be explored in detail, and in any event, many of the matters raised would be more appropriately considered at technical details consent stage rather than the initial ‘in principle’ stage.

The proposal constitutes habitats development which is exempted from permission in principle under Article 5B(1) of the Order. Consequently, permission in principle cannot be granted.

However, even if permission in principle could be granted, I have found there would be conflict with policies which seek to direct development to sustainable locations. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole.

The Council acknowledge that they are unable to demonstrate a five-year land supply of deliverable housing (5YHLS). The Council’s Five-Year Housing Land [name] at 1 April 2025 identifies a figure of 2.07 years, which is a very significant shortfall. Where a 5YHLS cannot be demonstrated, paragraph 11d of the Framework means that the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, and that permission should be granted unless the circumstances in paragraph 11d(i) or 11d(ii) apply.

In this case, paragraph 11d(i) is engaged as the proposal concerns habitats sites, and policies in the Framework would provide a strong reason for refusing the proposed development. Consequently, irrespective of the level of 5YHLS shortfall, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

I have concluded that the proposal would constitute habitats development which is exempted from permission in principle under Article 5B(1) of the Order. Consequently, it follows that permission in principle cannot be granted.

However, if permission in principle could be granted, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations which indicate a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it.

Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.