Appeal 6003790

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development on the application form differs from that in the banner heading above, the proposal was originally described as “semi-detached 1.5 storey house built in materials to match existing”. I have a copy of a letter sent by the Council to the then applicant advising that the description of development had been amended to that set out above. [name] do not have any confirmation that the amended description was agreed, I note that the appellant has used the amended description on the appeal form. Given that the appellant has adopted the amended description, I will proceed to determine the appeal on the basis of that description.

The appellant has submitted an amended plan1 showing a revised parking layout, this information was not before the Council when it determined the application. The amended parking layout has been submitted to seek to address the first reason for refusal inasmuch as it relates to the parking layout. I am satisfied that the additional material does not amount to a substantial difference or a fundamental change to the scheme that was determined by the Council. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the revised plan. I am satisfied that no prejudice arises from my approach.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the: • Character and appearance of the area, and • Integrity of protected European sites. 1 Plan A DR025 07/07/2025

The appeal site forms part of the side and rear garden area associated with No. [site address] . It is located within a residential area characterised predominantly by detached low-rise dwellings. These properties generally benefit from well-proportioned front and rear garden spaces giving the area a relatively spacious character ad appearance.

The proposal seeks to subdivide this existing curtilage. This would create a new residential plot with a relatively small rear garden and a modest front garden incorporating a driveway for the proposed dwelling. A visitor parking space is also proposed on the verge along the [address] frontage.

Such an arrangement would be at odds with the prevailing character and appearance of the area, appearing as a contrived and cramped form of development. Furthermore, the proposed visitor parking space would result in an awkward and incongruous arrangement that would fail to integrate satisfactorily with the established street scene.

Moreover, the proposal would have a noticeably higher ridge height than the existing property, resulting in an incongruous addition to the street scene.

The appellant submits that the resultant garden area for the proposed dwelling would be of an appropriate size for a 2-bedroom property. I make no adverse finding in respect of the level of private amenity space provided. The harm I have identified relates to the visual impact of the proposal.

The Council and the appellant have drawn my attention to planning permission ref. 23/10911 granted in December 2023, which allowed an extension to the rear of No. [site address] with first floor accommodation above. The Council confirms that the footprint of that development is broadly similar as the appeal proposal, although the height of the appeal proposal would be greater. The visual and spatial implications of an extension to a dwelling are materially different from those of a new dwelling on a subdivided plot. The creation of an additional residential unit would introduce increased domestic paraphernalia together with additional parking provision, which would serve to accentuate the cramped and contrived nature of the development, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy ENV3 of the Local Plan 2016-2036 Part 1: Planning Strategy for the New Forest District outside the New Forest National Park which, insofar as relevant, requires development to achieve high-quality design that avoids harmful impacts on character and the overall quality of the area, while respecting and enhancing local distinctiveness and integrating effectively with its surroundings. This is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The application site is located within the vicinity of the New Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site; the Solent and [name]; the Solent and [name]; the [name]; and the New Forest Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (the [name]).

[name] were minded to grant permission, I would need to assess whether the scheme would adversely affect the integrity of these habitat sites, which would include consideration of proposed mitigation measures and whether they would be sufficient to address the harm likely to be caused by the development.

The Council confirms that a Grampian-style condition could be imposed to ensure that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of the [name] in relation to nutrient impacts. In respect of recreational impacts, the Mitigation for [name] on New Forest European Sites SPD (2021) requires mitigation in the form of developer contributions to conclude that the proposal would not result in an adverse effect on site integrity. However, no mechanism has been secured to deliver such mitigation.

In the absence of a completed legal agreement or other appropriate securing mechanism, I cannot be satisfied that the necessary mitigation would be delivered and therefore cannot conclude that no adverse effects on the integrity of the [name] would arise. As such, the proposal would be in conflict with Policy ENV1 of the New Forest District Local Plan Part 1 Planning Strategy and DM2 of the New Forest District Local Plan Part 2: Sites and Development Management, which in so far as is relevant direct that development will only be permitted where necessary mitigation, management or monitoring measures are secured.

I have noted the representations with regard to the impact of the scheme on the living conditions of people living nearby and concerns raised with regards to drainage and surface water. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I have not needed to consider these matters any further.

The main parties agree that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year land supply of deliverable housing (5YHLS). The Council confirms that the current supply position is approximately 1.5 years, which represents a significant shortfall.

The appeal site is subject to policies which protect areas of particular importance, namely the [name]. In the absence of the necessary mitigation measures to address recreational pressures and ensure that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of those sites, policies in the Framework provide a strong reason for refusing the proposed development. However, even if this were not the case, I have found adverse impacts to the character and appearance of the area. This in my view, significantly and demonstrably outweighs the modest benefits which include the provision of a single dwelling along with the economic benefits of construction and local expenditure

Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case.

Thus, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole, and no material considerations, including the Framework, indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it.