Appeal 6003455

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for 5 residential dwellings with associated access, parking, landscaping, infrastructure and works at [site address] , [site address] , Andover [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01460/FULLN, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The address in the banner heading above has been taken from the Council’s decision notice and the appellant’s appeal form for clarity purposes.

I have been advised that, during the course of the appeal proceedings, a revised application1 for three dwellings on the appeal site was considered by the Council’s Northern Area Planning Committee, which resolved to grant planning permission on 12 March 2026. I have had regard to this decision insofar as it is material to the determination of the proposal before me.

Whilst it has not been cited as a reason for refusal, the Council’s evidence indicates that the proposal conflicts with the local development strategy for housing delivery, particularly in relation to new housing in the countryside. Given the implications of this matter and its relevance to my assessment, I must reach my own conclusions on this issue before applying the planning balance, if relevant. Accordingly, I will treat this as a main issue in my reasoning below.

The Council has also advised that the reference in the reason for refusal to paragraph 12D of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) was a typographical error. The reference should instead have been to paragraph 11d of the Framework. The appellant has had the opportunity to comment on this correction, and I have determined the appeal on that basis. 1 Application No 26/00110/FULLN

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be in a suitable location, having regard to the development strategy for the area; • the effect on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect on the integrity of the Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site, [name] and Ramsar site, and the Solent and [name], with particular regard to nutrient neutrality.

The appeal site lies outside, but immediately adjacent to, the defined settlement boundary of Andover on three sides. It is therefore regarded as open countryside. Policy COM2 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan DPD (2016) (the Local Plan) sets out the settlement hierarchy. It permits development outside settlement boundaries only where it is a) appropriate in the countryside, as specified in other Local Plan policies, or b) where it is demonstrated that the proposal must be located in the countryside.

There are two specific Local Plan policies that allow for housing development in the countryside, which are Policies COM8 and COM9. These relate respectively to [name] and Community-Led Development. The appeal proposal does not fall within either category. As such, it does not meet criterion (a) of Policy COM2. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided to show that the proposal is essential to a countryside location, as required by criterion (b). The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy COM2.

Therefore, for these reasons, the proposal would not occupy a suitable location when assessed against the development strategy for the area. It would conflict with Policy COM2, which allows development outside settlement boundaries only in exceptional circumstances, circumstances that are not met by the proposal.

The appeal site relates to a rectangular parcel of land, located to the south of [name]. [name] forms the northern boundary of the site and boundary treatments include post-and-rail fencing, sporadic hedging along the northern edge, mature vegetation to the east, and an open southern boundary. The site slopes gently upwards from north to south, has historically been used for grazing, and contains no buildings or notable landscape features.

[name] is a semi-rural road with high hedges and detached dwellings in spacious plots, forming a loose-knit pattern. Built form is slightly sparser on the south-east side of [name], which allows for more views out towards the countryside, as claimed by the Council. However, built form, both residential and commercial, are still very much visible and part of the local context of the appeal site. To the west, the site adjoins No. 11 [name], with Walworth Business Park positioned further west offering a mix of commercial and employment uses. To the east, land at [name] is in mixed commercial and storage use, while open land lies to the south. Whilst the light-industrial use might be low-key and not detract from the rural character, as claimed by the Council, it does nonetheless form part of the established local context of the appeal site.

A wider modern residential area of around 530 homes lies beyond [name] to the north, delivered as part of the COM6 allocation at [site address] , with pedestrian links from [name] providing access into this neighbouring development. Other recent approvals or resolutions to grant in the local area include four dwellings at Mulberry Farm2, three dwellings adjacent to Andreena3, and an extension to Walworth Business Park4. Whilst [site address] retains a semi-rural character despite this recent development, as suggested by the Council, the nearby developments have changed the character of the area from semi-rural to a slightly more suburban character. I also observed the other depth development at [address] opposite the appeal site.

Therefore, the evidence before me indicates that the pattern of development along this part of the road is neither uniform nor strongly defined. A mixture of detached dwellings, varied building lines and more recent schemes, including the modern residential development opposite and consents in the immediate vicinity, contribute to an evolving and transitional character. Taking all of the above into account, whilst the appeal site does contribute positively towards the verdant, semi-rural qualities of [name], due to the presence of a variety of existing built form in the immediate context, the site contrasts, to some extent, with the more verdant and open countryside that extends to the south and east.

Although the site lies within designated countryside, it is immediately adjacent to the Andover settlement boundary and relates well to the existing built-up area. The site measures 0.32ha and proposes five dwellings, resulting in a gross density of approximately 16 dwellings per hectare. Plot 1 would form a suitable frontage onto [name], while the remaining dwellings to the rear would not appear out of keeping, given the varied plot depths and established examples of backland development locally, including opposite the site. The traditional design of the dwellings, the use of locally characteristic materials, and the generous plot sizes would reflect the established character, particularly the layout and density, of [name].

Although the site occupies gently rising land, the incorporation of varied ridge heights and roof forms, as shown on the street scene drawings, would respond to the site’s topography and help to minimise any additional visual impact arising from the slope. Strengthened boundary planting, particularly along the northern and southern boundaries, would ensure that the development is well integrated and would reinforce the verdant, semi-rural qualities of [name]. This would be secured through an appropriately worded planning condition.

While the site is currently undeveloped, the introduction of sensitively designed dwellings within a well-landscaped setting would not result in harm when viewed in the wider context of surrounding development. The Council’s Landscape Officer 2 23/02208/FULLN 3 24/01206/FULLN 4 24/02977/FULLN raised no objection, and there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the proposal would result in any significant material harm.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, I find that the proposal would not result in material harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would comply with Policy E1 of the Local Plan, which requires development to be of high quality, integrating with, respecting and complementing the character of the area in terms of layout, appearance, scale, materials and building styles. Development should make efficient use of land while respecting the character of the surrounding area and neighbouring uses. Development will not be permitted where it is of poor design or fails to improve the character, function and quality of the area.

The Council has referred to paragraph 135 of the Framework, which seeks to ensure that development is visually attractive through good design, layout and landscaping. This was not cited in the reasons for refusal. In any case, as I have found that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area, any suggested conflict with this part of the Framework would not alter my overall conclusion on this matter.

Natural England’s guidance requires all new development providing overnight accommodation to demonstrate nutrient neutrality. Evidence shows that elevated nitrate levels from wastewater associated with new housing are contributing to eutrophication within internationally designated sites in the Solent, adversely affecting their conservation objectives. The affected sites include the Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site, [name] and Ramsar site, and the Solent and [name].

Given the nature and location of the proposal, likely significant effects on these designated sites cannot be ruled out. An Appropriate Assessment is therefore required. As the competent authority, I must consider whether the development would adversely affect the integrity of the designated sites, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects. The evidence indicates that the proposal, for 5 additional dwellings, would increase nitrate loading within the catchment and, without mitigation, would be likely to result in significant effects.

A site-specific nutrient budget has been prepared using Natural England’s standard methodology and calculator (updated January 2024). This identifies that the development would generate 0.31 kg N/year, accounting for the proposed use of a small wastewater treatment system. To address this, the appellant has entered into a [name] (dated 6 October 2025) securing nitrate credits from the [address] strategic mitigation scheme, which removes former agricultural land from active use and manages it for long-term nitrate reduction.

I understand that Natural England has previously reviewed the [address] scheme and raised no objection to the classification of the former agricultural land or the mitigation capacity it provides. The credits secured through the [name] are sufficient to fully offset the nitrate load associated with the appeal proposal. Furthermore, Natural England has been consulted and has confirmed that, with the secured mitigation in place, the development would not result in adverse effects on the integrity of the Solent sites. I concur with this conclusion.

On this basis, I am satisfied that the development would achieve nutrient neutrality and that the mitigation measures secured ensure that no adverse effects on the integrity of the [name], SACs and Ramsar sites would arise, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. The proposal therefore accords with Policy E5 of the Local Plan and the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. In combination, these seek to ensure that development does not give rise to adverse effects on internationally designated sites and that appropriate mitigation is secured where potential impacts are identified.

Local residents and the Town Council have expressed a wide range of concerns including the impact on surface water drainage, loss of hedgerow and impact on ecology. However, having considered the technical evidence before me and the views of the relevant statutory consultees and that of the Council, I consider that a number of these matters can be controlled and maintained by appropriately worded conditions.

The Town Council has requested that solar panels, EV charging points, improved insulation and heat pumps be incorporated into the development. However, the Council has not recommended any conditions to secure these measures, and I have not been directed to any policy or guidance that would require them to be specifically included.

The Council and interested parties have drawn my attention to the findings of an earlier appeal at Andreena5, where the Inspector concluded that the proposed six dwellings in that case would harm the character and appearance of the area. [name] have had regard to that decision, it appears, based on the limited evidence before me, which consists only of the appeal decision itself, that it pre-dated the new residential development to the north of the site and that, at that time, the Council was able to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing. Both of these factors materially differ from the circumstances of the proposal before me now. I therefore attach only limited weight to that earlier decision, and it does not alter my findings above.

I have found no harm to the character and appearance of the area. I am also satisfied that the development would achieve nutrient neutrality and that the mitigation measures secured ensure that no adverse effects on the integrity of the internationally designated sites in the Solent would arise, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

However, I have found conflict with Policy COM2 of the Local Plan, by virtue of the site being outside of any defined settlement boundary, it not being allocated for housing and it failing to fall under any of the exceptions set out by Policy COM2. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council in its Statement of Case has confirmed that as of April 2025, the Council can only demonstrate a 2.54 year supply of deliverable housing sites, which is slightly worse than the 2.76 year supply at the time the application was 5 APP/C1760/W/20/3252874 determined. Nevertheless, paragraph 11 of the Framework is engaged. Paragraph 11(d)(ii) states that where the most important policies for determining the application are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole. This includes consideration of key policies relating to directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land and securing well‐designed places. Footnote 8 confirms that this test applies where a local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five‐year supply of deliverable housing sites, whilst Footnote 9 identifies the policies of particular relevance.

While the conflict with the development strategy weighs against the proposal, the housing strategy is clearly failing to deliver a five‐year supply. As such, the weight given to the conflict with Policy COM2 is reduced, and I attach moderate weight to that conflict in the circumstances of this appeal. I also recognise that the location of the appeal site would be well related to existing facilities, services and public transport, providing opportunities to reduce reliance on the private car.

The appeal site also comprises Grade 3 agricultural land and is therefore classified as Best and [name] (BMV) land. Footnote 65 to paragraph 188 of the Framework states that where significant development of agricultural land is necessary, poorer-quality land should be used in preference to higher-quality land. The loss of BMV land therefore weighs against the proposal, particularly in the context of paragraph 187 of the Framework. However, the site extends to only 0.32ha and does not constitute a ‘significant’ development of agricultural land. In this context, I attach only limited weight to the loss of BMV land in the planning balance.

Given the scale of the current housing land supply shortfall, especially as the supply position appears to be worsening, the provision of 5 dwellings would attract significant weight in the planning balance. This is consistent with the Government’s aim, set out in paragraph 61 of the Framework, to significantly boost the supply of homes. This remains the case notwithstanding the position of the Council that the proposal only makes a ‘modest contribution’ to the housing land supply’. Paragraph 73 of the Framework also recognises the important contribution that small and medium sized sites play in meeting housing land supply and are often built out quickly.

The proposal would also generate a number of socio-economic benefits that weigh in its favour. It would support the aim of creating strong, vibrant and healthy communities, with the development offering opportunities for new social and community connections to form. The scheme would also deliver economic benefits during both the construction and occupation phases, contributing to a stronger and more resilient local economy. Future residents would support local services and facilities in the area, helping to sustain their ongoing viability. Collectively, these benefits attract moderate weight.

With regard to the key policies referenced in Footnote 9 of paragraph 11 of the Framework, given my findings on the character and appearance of the area, I am satisfied that the development would achieve an appropriate density that makes effective use of land, and that a well‐designed scheme would be delivered. The opportunities that the site would provide to reduce reliance on the private car would also assist in directing development to sustainable locations. Consequently, I am satisfied that the proposal would not conflict with the key policies listed in Footnote 9.

Accordingly, in the context of paragraph 11 d) ii of the Framework, the adverse impacts of the development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits when assessed against the Framework’s policies taken as a whole. This includes consideration of key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land and securing well-designed places. Therefore, although the proposal would conflict with the development plan when considered in its entirety, material considerations, including the Framework, outweigh that conflict and indicate that planning permission should be granted for development that is not fully in accordance with the plan.

The conditions set out in the accompanying schedule are based on those suggested by the Council. These conditions have been considered against the tests of the Framework and advice provided by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on conditions. I have undertaken some minor editing and rationalisation in the interests of precision and clarity. Those included in the schedule are found to be reasonable and necessary in the circumstances of this case.

A condition setting a time limit for commencement of the development is required by statute. It is also appropriate that there is a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty.

Conditions 3, 4 and 5 are all required in the interests of highway safety. In order to ensure that the on-site parking is provided as approved and to reduce highway congestion, conditions 6 and 7 are considered necessary.

Condition 8 is required to ensure that any land contamination is assessed and remediated accordingly in the interests of the living conditions of future occupants. To ensure that existing trees and other natural features are retained and protected, conditions 9 and 10 are required.

In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, condition 11 which secures full details of all hard and soft landscaping is required. Condition 12 is necessary to protect and enhance biodiversity. In order to improve water usage efficiency, condition 13 is considered reasonable due to the requirements of Policy E7 of the Local Plan.

Finally, condition 14 is necessary to ensure that the development does not result in adverse effects on the Solent and [name] through additional nitrate loading, and to safeguard the living conditions of future occupants and neighbouring properties. Although this condition was omitted from the Council’s suggested conditions, it formed part of the original case officer’s committee report. The appellant has confirmed their agreement to the condition, and I am satisfied that it is both reasonable and necessary to impose it.

For the reasons set out above, having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal is allowed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR

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 of [name] 240017, drawn by [name], dated 16/06/25: • ‘Proposed Site Plan’, drawing number 03; • ‘Site Location Plan’, drawing number 01; • ‘[name] & Elevations (Garages), drawing number 09; • ‘[name] & Elevations (P1)’, drawing number 04; • ‘[name] & Elevations (P2)’, drawing number 05; • ‘[name] & Elevations (P3)’, drawing number 06; • ‘[name] & Elevations (P4)’, drawing number 07; • ‘[name] & Elevations (P5)’, drawing number 08; and • ‘[address] Scenes’, drawing number 11.

The development shall not be brought into use until all areas indicated to be used for vehicles and pedestrians on the approved plan(s) have been laid out with a hardened, sealed and drained surface. Provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the development. Details shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and retained and maintained as such at all times.

The development shall not be brought into the use until vehicular visibility splays as detailed on the approved plan(s) have been provided. Within these visibility splays, there should be no obstruction to visibility exceeding 600mm in height above the adjacent carriageway channel line. The vehicular visibility splays shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development.

No development shall take place, (including any works of demolition), until a [name] has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved statement shall include scaled drawings illustrating the provision for: 1) The parking of site operatives and visitors’ vehicles. 2) Loading and unloading of plant and materials. 3) Management of construction traffic and access routes. 4) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development. 5) [name] demonstrating that the largest vehicles associated with the construction process can access, egress and turn within the confines of the site. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The development shall not be occupied until space has been laid out and provided for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles to enable them to enter and leave the site in a forward gear in accordance with the approved plan and this space shall thereafter be reserved for such purposes at all times.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order), the garage(s) hereby approved shall at all times be available for the parking of vehicles.

No development shall take place (other than any approved demolition and site clearance works) until an assessment of the nature and extent of any contamination and a scheme for remediating the contamination has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The assessment must be undertaken by a competent person, and shall assess the presence of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The assessment shall comprise a site investigation and risk assessment, as identified in the submitted [name] report (ref: J24-086-R01, dated November 2025) by GCC. In the event that contamination is found, or is considered likely, the scheme shall contain remediation proposals designed to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use. Such remediation proposals shall include clear remediation objectives and criteria, an appraisal of the remediation options, and the arrangements for the supervision of remediation works by a competent person. The site shall not be brought in to use until a verification report, for the purpose of certifying adherence to the approved remediation scheme, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in full accordance with the provisions set out within the Eco Urban Arboricultural Implications Assessment and the [name]: 251671- AIA 2 Date: 25 June 2025.

The proposed access driveway as shown within the Eco Urban Arboricultural Implications Assessment and [name]: 251671- [name] 25 June 2025, shall be constructed to a non-dig specification above existing ground levels, the details and method of which must be submitted and approved by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of its construction. The construction of the driveway shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained.

No development shall take place above DPC level of the development hereby permitted until full details of hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Details shall include: 1) Proposed finish levels or contours; 2) Means of enclosure; 3) Car parking layouts; 4) Other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; 5) Hard surfacing materials; 6) Minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, etc);

Proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports); 8) Planting plans; 9) Written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); 10) Schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities; 11) Programme of implementation The landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the implementation programme.

The development shall be undertaken in full accordance with Section 5.0 ‘Requirements and Recommendations’ of the Ecological Assessment ([name], 11th September 2025).

The development hereby approved shall be designed and built to meet Regulation 36 2 (b) requirement of 110 litres/person/day water efficiency set out in part G2 of Building Regulations 2015.

The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the package treatment plant hereby permitted has been installed and brought into use to service the dwellings. The package treatment plant shall be installed in accordance with the submitted details, consistent of a “one2cleanXtra 24 [name] 16000 L/4227 gal” and shall be retained and maintained thereafter.