Appeal 6003652

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the erection of two dwellings at [site address] , [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01731/PIP.

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 (‘permission in principle’) 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.

In respect of residential development, an applicant can apply for permission in principle for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum number of net dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, permission in principle has been sought for the erection of a minimum and maximum of two dwellings at the appeal site. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on that basis, having regard to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) (Amendment) Order 2017 and the PPG.

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.

Both parties refer to the relevant planning history related to the appeal site, notably 2 earlier appeal decisions for residential development for one single dwelling1 and one for four dwellings2, both of which were dismissed. I have had regard to these decisions insofar as they are relevant to the current proposal, and I refer to them in my reasoning where appropriate. I have also been advised that since the submission of the appeal, a further planning application has been lodged with the Council for a single dwelling on the appeal site3.

The main issues are whether the location, the proposed land use and the amount of development is suitable, with particular regard to: • whether the proposed development would provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to the development strategy for the area; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect on the significance of the Grade II Listed buildings known as [address] and [address] Barn and stable north of the house as designated heritage assets through development within their setting.

[site address] does not benefit from a defined settlement boundary. Accordingly, the appeal site falls within the open countryside. Policy SS1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011–2029 (adopted 2016) (the Local Plan) sets out the spatial strategy for meeting the Borough’s housing needs over the Plan period. The strategy focuses on delivering growth primarily through allocated greenfield sites and the redevelopment of land within established towns and villages. Development in the open countryside is tightly controlled. Beyond the defined Settlement Policy Boundaries, the policy aims to retain the countryside’s open character, avoid the merging of settlements, and prevent unnecessary intrusion of built development into rural areas.

Policy SS6 sets out the exceptional circumstances in which new housing may be supported in the countryside, including small-scale residential proposals that address a locally agreed need (criterion e). The Council has published a guidance note to assist in addressing locally agreed need, which advises that an applicant should demonstrate that their proposal meets a specific and clearly identified unmet need in the local area in terms of number, size, type, and tenure, and refers to the need being with the Parish, village, or settlement. However, the appellant has not provided evidence to demonstrate that the development would meet a locally agreed need in line with this guidance. As a result, the proposal would not fall within any of the exceptions provided for under Policy SS6.

I acknowledge the Council’s view that the site is not isolated and that future occupants would have opportunities to use modes of transport other than the private car to access day-to-day services and facilities. The National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) recognises at paragraph 110 that 1 Appeal Ref APP/H1705/W/24/3337812 2 Appeal Ref APP/H1705/W/19/3226545 3 Application Ref 26/00149/FUL opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. There is no substantive evidence before me to reach a different conclusion, and I agree that the scheme would offer realistic opportunities for sustainable travel and would support the transition to a low-carbon future.

Nevertheless, for the reasons set out above, the proposal would not represent a suitable location for housing when considered against the development strategy for the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies SS1 and SS6 of the Local Plan, which together seek to focus new housing within settlement boundaries and restrict development in the countryside except where specific criteria are met, which this proposal does not achieve.

The appeal site relates to a roughly square parcel of land, approximately 0.4ha in area, which forms part of a larger parcel of land situated to the north of [address]. The site currently comprises an undeveloped agricultural field, with no direct access to the parcel of land itself from [address].

It lies to the west of a row of linear detached dwellings that front on to [address], with established vegetation along the roadside frontage. To the north, [address] Close have been recently constructed4, accessed from [address] (A340) and are clearly visible from the appeal site. To the west, more open fields extend, with sporadic built form also visible. An electric power line runs in a southwest-to-northeast direction to the north of the site. The southern side of [address] is much more open and devoid of built form, with areas of woodland also visible, and contrasts with the slightly more developed northern side of which the appeal site forms part of. Consequently, the site’s local context consists of residential built form, woodland, and agricultural fields.

Although the site forms part of a larger agricultural field, it lies directly beside the dwelling known as [address] to the east. [address] gives some impression of marking the ‘end of the defined settlement’, as claimed by the Council, the appeal site is visually read as forming part of the existing settlement boundary rather than an isolated countryside location or a clear demarcation between the village and the wider countryside.

Taking the above and my observations on site into account, I recognise that the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area, including the local rural landscape and the transition between [site address] and the adjoining countryside. Its position carries a degree of sensitivity, as alleged by the Council. However, due to the presence 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 of [address].

The proposal would introduce two dwellings, although their detailed design, scale and siting remain to be confirmed. The development of two dwellings would represent a suitable and proportionate continuation of the established pattern of development along [address], rather than an encroachment into open countryside. It would simply shift the defined settlement edge slightly further west from its current position. The proposal would be sympathetic to the existing settlement pattern, integrating with the character of the local landscape. The 4 Planning Application Ref 21/01720/[name] stage would ensure that matters of scale, plot size, density and character are appropriate to the surrounding development.

The Technical Details Consent stage would also secure any necessary landscaping, ensuring that the established vegetation along the roadside is retained (with the exception of the new access) to mitigate any visual impact. Additional planting along the northern and western boundaries would further soften views and ensure that the development sits comfortably within its context. This would avoid any perception of undue suburbanisation and would assist in successfully integrating the dwellings into the landscape and their surroundings.

While domestic features would be introduced, such as hardstanding, a formalised access, garden boundaries, and domestic paraphernalia, these would be viewed in the context of existing residential development to the north and east. As such, they would not appear as incongruous or isolated. They would occupy only a small part of the wider field, with the majority of the land remaining open and continuing to contribute to the rural setting.

Accordingly, the proposal would not result in harm to the character, appearance or landscape setting of this part of [address]. Instead, it would form a modest and well‐contained addition to the settlement edge, preserving the transition between the village and the surrounding countryside.

I have had regard to the Inspector’s findings in both earlier appeal decisions. However, the circumstances of those cases differ materially from the scheme now before me. The most recent dismissed appeal concerned a single dwelling 5. Whilst the Inspector in this case found no harm to the character and appearance of the area, nor to the setting of the listed buildings, they did find conflict with the development plan due to the conflict with the spatial strategy. However, at the time, the Council were able to demonstrate a 4 year supply of housing, which was the relevant test at the time under the 2023 Framework. Thus, paragraph 11 d of the Framework was not engaged at this time.

Similarly, although the Council refers to the 2019 appeal for four dwellings 6 on a 0.52ha site, that proposal represented a more intensive form of development, which the Inspector at that time found would harm the character and appearance of the area, affording the harm significant weight. I also recognise the conclusions of the earlier Inspector who was not persuaded that additional landscaping would fully mitigate the visual and landscape effects of development. Whilst the size of the appeal site before me now would be only marginally smaller at 0.4ha, the proposal would be materially different, introducing two dwellings as opposed to the four dwellings proposed in 2019. As such, although the design, scale and siting are currently unknown, the landscape impact would be less than the scheme for four dwellings and cannot simply be equated to it by reference to site area alone.

The current proposal allows for greater separation, landscaping and a looser grain of development, thereby reducing the perception of encroachment and enabling a more sympathetic response to the site’s edge-of-settlement context. For these reasons, the conclusions reached in the earlier appeals do not alter my assessment that the current proposal would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the area. 5 Appeal Ref APP/H1705/W/24/3337812 6 Appeal Ref APP/H1705/W/19/3226545

Therefore, in view of the above, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would be in accordance with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Local Plan, Section 4 of the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2018) and the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2018). Collectively, these policies, and the SPD’s require development to be sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area, respecting the local environment and positively contributing to local distinctiveness. Proposals should respond appropriately to the local landscape and site context, ensuring they respect, enhance, and do not harm the character or visual amenity of the affected landscape. Particular regard must be given to visual amenity, scenic quality, and the setting of the settlement, including important views to, across, within, and out of the settlement.

The proposal would also be in accordance with the principles set out in Chapter 12 of the Framework, which promotes well-designed development that is sympathetic to local character.

The appeal site lies to the east of [address] House and [address] Barn and [name] of the House, both [name] listed buildings. For the purposes of this appeal, their significance derives principally from their architectural detailing and historic interest. [address] House is a two-storey red-brick dwelling constructed in English bond, with the listing description noting a date of 1665 and later additions dating from around 1900.

The immediate setting of these heritage assets is best appreciated from their own grounds and from [address], which runs directly in front of them. However, the open fields to the east of [address], of which the appeal site forms the easternmost part, also contribute to their wider rural setting. The open views across the fields facilitate appreciation of the listed buildings and influence how they are experienced. In its undeveloped form, the appeal site contributes positively and meaningfully to this rural village setting and, in turn, to the significance of the

I have concluded above that the proposal would not materially harm the character and appearance of the area. Although the introduction of two dwellings would bring residential built form slightly closer to the listed buildings than at present, a substantial extent of open fields would remain between the appeal site and the assets. This degree of separation would continue to allow for their clear appreciation, and the openness that forms part of their wider rural setting would not be materially compromised.

I note that the earlier scheme for four dwellings on a slightly larger part of this field was refused partly on heritage grounds and subsequently dismissed at appeal7, with the Inspector concluding that the loss of the open field in that scheme would be detrimental to the setting of the listed buildings. I have taken that conclusion into account. However, the circumstances of the current proposal differ materially. The scale of development has been reduced from four dwellings to two, the site area is slightly smaller, and the built form would remain confined to the eastern portion of the field. As a result, a substantial extent of open land would continue to separate the development from the listed buildings to the west, preserving their wider rural 7 Appeal Ref APP/H1705/W/19/3226545 setting and ensuring that their appreciation is not diminished. Furthermore, unlike in the earlier scheme, the Council has not alleged heritage harm in this appeal, noting in the delegated report that any less‐than‐substantial harm to the assets’ setting would be outweighed by the public benefit of providing additional housing.

Based on the evidence before me, and my observations on site, I am satisfied that the proposal would not harm the setting or significance of these designated heritage assets. The Technical Details Consent stage would allow for control over the precise design and appearance of the dwellings to ensure they are appropriate in relation to the nearby listed buildings.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the proposal would preserve the significance of the [name] listed buildings known as [address] and [address] Barn and [name] of the House as designated heritage assets, through development within their setting. The proposal would accord with Policy EM11 of the Local Plan, which seeks to protect heritage assets, having particular regard to the setting of listed buildings. It would also align with the principles in Section 16 of the Framework, which require great weight to be given to the conservation of heritage assets.

Interested parties and the Parish Council have raised concerns regarding highway safety, neighbouring living conditions, and potential effects on ecology, biodiversity and trees, including [name]. However, these matters relate to technical, site‐specific details that can be appropriately addressed at the [name] stage, where matters of layout, landscaping and mitigation can be fully considered. Approval of permission in principle does not guarantee that [name] would follow, as planning permission is only secured once both stages have been approved.

Notably, the site is of sufficient size to accommodate up to two dwellings while maintaining appropriate separation distances to safeguard neighbouring living conditions. I am also satisfied that the site can accommodate the dwellings whilst maintaining appropriate separation from both the claimed ‘important’ hedgerow and the frontage tree belt, including the trees said to be notable Oak trees. Detailed design, the precise siting of the dwellings, and the application of any necessary buffer zones are, in any event, matters for the [name] stage, at which the Council would retain full control to ensure that neither the hedgerow nor the tree belt would be harmed.

In regard to the number of properties currently for sale nearby, this does not necessarily demonstrate an absence of housing need. The Framework requires local planning authorities to significantly boost the supply of homes and to meet identified needs through the development plan and decision‐taking. The suggestion that the proposal would simply add to existing unsold stock does not alter this requirement. Consequently, assertions that further housing is unnecessary, or that the development would make no meaningful contribution, are not supported by the evidence. Furthermore, some of the comments originate from individuals who have recently moved into the area, which in itself indicates that the location remains desirable and capable of supporting additional housing.

I note the concern that the proposal would set a precedent for more extensive housebuilding on the rest of the field or elsewhere in the Borough should the appeal be allowed. However, my decision is based solely on the specific merits and circumstances of the proposal before me. It does not establish any precedent for wider development within the area.

Finally, I have considered the concerns of residents, including those who refer to the existing open aspect behind their homes. Private expectations about the retention of views, or statements made in property sale documentation, do not preclude development. The planning system does not protect private views, and any claimed covenants affecting the land are separate legal matters that fall outside the scope of an application for permission in principle. Accordingly, they do not influence my assessment of the planning merits.

I have found no harm to the character and appearance of the area, and I am satisfied that the proposal would preserve the significance of the [name] listed buildings known as [address] and [address] Barn and [name] of the House as designated heritage assets, through development within their setting. However, the proposal would conflict with Policies SS1 and SS6 of the Local Plan, as the site lies outside any defined settlement boundary and does not fall within any of the exceptions identified under Policy SS6. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole.

The Council’s statement of case confirms that it can only currently demonstrate a 3.2‐year supply of deliverable housing sites. Consequently, 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, securing well‐designed places, and supporting the delivery of housing. 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 Policies SS1 and SS6 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 represent a sustainable form of development, with services and facilities accessible on foot or by public transport, providing opportunities to reduce reliance on the private car.

Given the scale of the current housing land supply shortfall, the provision of up to two 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 concerns from interested parties who argue that two dwellings would make only a limited contribution to addressing identified housing need.

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. I note that the appellant advises that the [name] is currently operating below capacity, and the additional homes would assist its long-term viability by increasing the number of families living within its catchment area. 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 surrounding villages and in Basingstoke, helping to sustain their ongoing viability. Collectively, these benefits attract moderate weight, rather than the limited weight suggested by the Council.

With regard to the key policies referenced in Footnote 9 of paragraph 11 of the Framework, I am also satisfied that the matters they address can be fully secured at the [name] stage. This includes ensuring that the development achieves an appropriate density that makes effective use of land, and that a well‐designed scheme would be delivered. 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 PPG makes clear that it is not possible to impose conditions on a permission in principle, which may only specify the site location, type and amount of development. As such, although the Council has suggested informatives, none can be attached to a permission in principle and therefore none are included.

For the reasons set out above, and having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.