Appeal 6003851

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s emerging replacement Local Plan remains at an early stage of preparation, having yet to be submitted for independent examination. It therefore attracts very limited weight.

The main issues are: i) whether the appeal site is a suitable location for residential development having regard to the adopted local development strategy and access to facilities and services; and ii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of heritage assets.

Despite the presence of neighbouring residential properties, the appeal site lies within a distinctly rural area well outside any defined Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) as identified within the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011–2029 (the Local Plan). In planning policy terms, it therefore forms part of the open countryside.

Local Plan Policy SS1 directs new housing primarily to sites within SPBs or those allocated for development. Housing outside SPBs is only supported where it complies with specific exceptions set out elsewhere in the Local Plan.

Notably, Local Plan Policy SS6 identifies a limited number of circumstances where new housing in the countryside may be acceptable. As recognised by the appellant, the appeal proposal does not satisfy any of these exceptions.

[site address] contains a small range of facilities and services, including a primary school, pre-school, village hall, public house, church, post office and shop. However, these are located a considerable distance from the appeal site. Moreover, the connecting road is rural in character, being unlit and lacking footpaths in the vicinity of the site. During my site visit, I observed relatively high vehicle speeds, while the presence of narrow, often raised, verges and mature hedgerows offered limited opportunities for pedestrians to step off the highway for passing vehicles, whilst also limiting forward visibility in places.

Given both the distances involved and the nature of the surrounding highway network, future occupiers would be unlikely to walk or cycle regularly to local facilities and services. This deterrent would be even greater for the elderly, those with young children, or during adverse weather and hours of darkness.

Facilities to meet wider day-to-day needs are located further afield. Although the appellant refers to a bus service, the nearest stop is also some distance away along the rural roads described above, and no suitable evidence has been provided regarding service frequency or coverage. I therefore do not consider bus travel to be a realistic or convenient option for potential future occupiers.

Reference has also been made to nearby public rights of way. However, my observations indicate that these would not provide a realistic or attractive means of accessing local facilities and services due to their specific routes and variable surface conditions.

While the choice of travel mode ultimately rests with individual occupiers, the site’s location and surroundings would be unlikely to encourage sustainable travel options. Future residents would therefore be likely to rely heavily on private car use, the least sustainable mode of transport.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport will vary between urban and rural areas. Still, in the absence of appropriate infrastructure to support walking, cycling or suitable public transport options, I do not find the appeal site to be accessible by sustainable travel modes.

Consequently, the site is not a suitable location for residential development having regard to the adopted local development strategy and its access to facilities and services. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies SS1, SS6 and CN9 of the Local Plan, which together seek to direct development to sustainable locations and promote genuine alternatives to private car travel.

The Council’s decision notice also cites Local Plan Policy SD1, which reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out at Paragraph 11 of the Framework. Compliance with Policy SD1 therefore forms part of my overall

The appeal site comprises an undeveloped grassland field enclosed mainly by mature hedgerows. It sits adjacent to the highway behind a hedgerow and lies outside, but adjoining, the [site address] Conservation Area (CA).

[site address] ’s history and the growth of the settlement is intrinsically linked with the local agricultural industry and the [name]. With the CA deriving much of its significance from its mix of historic buildings, open spaces and contrasting landscapes focused along the main road. Its character combines rural vernacular features, including thatched cottages, farmsteads and informal village spaces, with the more formal estate landscapes of halls, parks, lodges and managed planting. The transition between parkland and the intimate village core, together with views through and out of the settlement, creates a strong sense of place reflecting both agricultural and estate influences.

The site’s immediate surroundings are characterised by gently rolling agricultural fields enclosed by hedgerows, with occasional woodland and only sporadic residential development. This gives the area a distinctly verdant and rural character. Although insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the site forms part of a valued landscape, its open and undeveloped nature nevertheless makes a modest but positive contribution to the local landscape and the setting of the CA.

Indeed, the [site address] Conservation Area Appraisal (the Appraisal) identifies the wider landscape setting provides an important contribution to the significance of the CA. The appeal site also lies adjacent to a key viewpoint identified within the Appraisal which, from my observations, affords attractive views towards a non-designated heritage asset and marks the early transition from the rural approach into the village.

The proposal would introduce a sizeable dwelling along with a large, detached garage, hardstanding, and associated domestic paraphernalia, resulting in a more urbanised appearance. The proposal would therefore urbanise and erode the site’s rural character. The set back position of the dwelling and retention of and introduction of further landscaping may be capable of softening the effects of the proposed development, but it remains that the open and rural quality of the appeal site would largely be diminished.

The streetscene includes a small number of dwellings on either side of the road, and the proposed design broadly reflects nearby built form in terms of scale and detailing. The development would therefore not appear isolated or wholly out of keeping with its surroundings, and views would be relatively localised. Nonetheless, the prevailing character of the area is one of open countryside, to which the undeveloped field makes an important contribution. Consequently, the proposal would cause modest harm to the character and appearance of the area and to the setting of the CA.

The site also lies opposite [address], an attractive, brick-built dwelling identified in the Appraisal as a notable building. Based on the available evidence and my own observations, I consider it to be a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA), deriving significance from its age, architectural quality, and rural setting. The proposal would urbanise its immediate surroundings and thereby result in modest harm to its setting and significance.

The site also falls within the setting of [address] and Allway, both [name] listed buildings. Their significance also derives principally from their age and architectural interest as c.17th/18th century thatched cottages, as well as their rural setting.

However, despite the identified harm to the character of the area and the settings of the CA and NDHA, I find that the proposal would preserve the significance of the listed buildings. This is due to the separation distances involved, the presence of significant intervening agricultural land and vegetation, limited intervisibility, as well as the presence of other sporadic residential development within their wider setting. Accordingly, while the proposal would be perceptible within the wider setting of the listed buildings, it would not harm their significance.

Nevertheless, the proposal would result in harm to the setting of the CA and the NDHA. In Framework terms, this would amount to less than substantial harm at the lower end of the scale. Even so, I am required to give great weight to the conservation of designated heritage assets, whilst balanced judgement should be applied in relation to harm to NDHAs.

The proposal would provide a new dwelling in an authority area with a significant housing shortfall. Accordingly, there would be socio-economic benefits associated with the delivery and subsequent occupation of the proposed dwelling, including through future residents supporting local services. Additionally, bio-diversity enhancements would also be provided. Still the potential benefits remain modest, and irrespective of the NDHA, I find together the public benefits do not outweigh the harm identified to the significance of the CA.

Taking all matters together, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of heritage assets. It therefore conflicts with Local Plan Policies SS6, EM1, EM10 and EM11, which seek to secure high-quality development that respects local character and conserves or enhances heritage significance.

The proposed development has the potential to affect the integrity of the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area and Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation. However, as I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, the development would not take place and would not affect the habitat sites. An appropriate assessment is therefore not required in this instance. Furthermore, even if I were to find suitable mitigation could be appropriately secured, a lack of harm to designated habitat sites would only amount to a neutral factor in the

Both main parties have referred to other appeal decisions in support of their respective positions. However, based on the information before me, those cases have contextual differences to the appeal scheme, including their specific locations and the precise nature of their surroundings.

The appeal scheme would provide some socio-economic benefits associated with the delivery and subsequent occupation of the proposed dwelling. There would also be environmental benefits through enhancements to bio-diversity. Given the scale of the proposal, such benefits are likely to be modest in nature. Meanwhile, in the absence of specific and detailed evidence, I give limited weight to the potential energy efficiency credentials of the proposed dwelling.

Given my findings in respect of the location of the development and harm to the character and appearance of the area, including heritage assets, I do not share the appellant’s view that the proposal would make effective use of the land.

Compliance with development plan policies, for example, in respect to the living conditions of residents, ecology or flood risk, are neutral matters in the planning balance.

For the reasons set out above—including its countryside location, poor access to services and facilities, harm to the character and appearance of the area and heritage assets and conflict with the development plan policies—I conclude that the appeal scheme is contrary to the development plan as a whole. These policies broadly align with the Framework’s objectives of directing development to sustainable locations and securing development that is of a high-quality design as well as conserves and enhances the historic environment.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, with the evidence before me suggesting a supply of approximately 3.2 years. Consequently, Paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged.

I have set out above why I consider the appeal scheme would be inappropriate having regard to its effects on a designated heritage asset, namely [site address] CA. The application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance therefore provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. The presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore does not apply, whilst the appeal scheme also conflicts with Local Plan Policy SD1.

In conclusion, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.