Appeal 6003810

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site is a parcel of land which previously comprised part of the rear garden to [address]. [address] is in use as a House in [name] and the site has been separated from this building. The land accommodates a garage which is accessed from [address] to the rear of the site. Properties on [address] have long, linear rear gardens which extend to [address] with land levels sloping steeply upwards towards [address]. [address] provides secondary access to the dwellings on [address], and many of the properties on [address] accommodate simple rear garages/ outbuildings to the rear, predominantly sited adjacent to the highway. There is a clear distinction in hierarchy between the more formal, prominent front elevations of the dwellings on [address] and the secondary role of outbuildings to [address], and this form and layout of buildings give this part of [address] a backland character which is clearly distinguishable from the spacious character of dwellings in the surrounding area.

The proposal is for the erection of a single storey 2-bedroom detached dwelling with a flat green roof. The dwelling would be set back from [address] behind an area of hardstanding which would accommodate 2 car parking spaces. The dwelling would be cut into the sloping site, and the rear garden would be at the same level as the rear gardens to the properties on [address], elevated above the property and accessed via a staircase to the side of the dwelling.

Whilst the dwelling would be a similar scale to an existing outbuilding fronting [address], it would clearly have the form and appearance of a dwelling which would jar with the secondary informal character of buildings which characterise this part of [address], and the dwelling’s recessed siting would be at odds with the predominantly linear character of buildings in the area. The dwelling would be sited tight to the site’s eastern boundary, and this, coupled with the limited plot depth, would give the impression that the dwelling has been shoehorned into the plot, amounting to an overdevelopment of the site. These factors would combine to create a cramped form of development which would contrast markedly with the surrounding built form.

The dwelling would be out of character with its surroundings, thereby causing harm to the established character and appearance of the area. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with those aims of [name] (2015) core policy 57 which seek to ensure that development is of a high standard of design which responds positively to local context. I also find conflict with the [name] (2024) and [name] (2006) which have similar aims and which set out that development is expected to draw on the local context and make a positive contribution to local character.

The site lies within the catchment of the River Avon Special Area of Conservation (SAC), a lowland chalk river system designated because of its water courses which host diverse fish species, invertebrates and diverse plant communities. Development in the catchment of the SAC has the potential to cause adverse effects on the SAC’s qualifying features and integrity, alone or in combination with other developments, through discharge of phosphorous in wastewater. The site is also in the zone of influence of the New Forest Special Protection Area, the New Forest SAC and the New Forest Ramsar site, an area of woodlands, heathlands, fens, valley mires, wet heaths and wetlands which are host to rare species, the integrity and qualifying features of which are threatened by increased recreational pressure associated with residential development, alone or in combination with other projects. However, as I have found harm in relation to the main issue, it is not necessary in this instance to undertake an appropriate assessment to consider the development’s effect on these European sites.

The dwelling would comply with the minimum dwelling and room dimensions set down in the [name] and future occupiers would be provided with a private area of amenity space. The Council raised no objections to the proposal in relation to its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties or its effect on highway safety. Based on the evidence before me I see no reason to reach a different view. Nonetheless, compliance with the relevant development plan policies on these matters would be required in any case, therefore these matters weigh neutrally rather than in favour of the proposal.

The appeal proposal has been amended following the earlier planning and appeal decisions, resulting in an amended design and reduced scale. Nonetheless, these amendments have failed to address the proposal’s harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The Council confirms that it is currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. As the proposal involves the provision of housing, footnote 8 of the Framework indicates the most important policies for determining the appeal are deemed to be out of date and paragraph 11d) ii. of the Framework is engaged. This requires that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The proposal would make a small contribution towards housing supply on a small site with good access to facilities and public transport. The dwelling would be constructed to high thermal performance standards, and the proposal would incorporate landscaping and a green roof with potential enhancements to biodiversity. The dwelling would contribute to the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes. There would be short-term economic benefits associated with the construction works, and contributions made by future occupiers to the local economy in the longer-term including council tax revenue. These matters weigh in favour of the scheme and, when factoring in the supply shortfall, attract moderate and meaningful weight as a scheme benefit.

On the other hand, I have found that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. Chapter 12 of the Framework sets out that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. I give significant weight to the conflict with the development plan policies in this area.

Thus, whilst the Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the delivery of one dwelling, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Thus, the proposal would not constitute a sustainable form of development in terms of the Framework and does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.