Appeal 6003874

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) alongside the appeal. The Council accepts that based on the findings of the FRA and updates to Planning Practice Guidance there is no requirement for the sequential test for flooding to be applied to the proposal. Additionally, subject to conditions that would secure appropriate mitigation measures, the Council has deemed the development could be delivered without resulting in material flood impacts and therefore its fifth reason for refusal has been overcome. There is no robust reasons for me to reach an alternative view.

In light of the above, the main issues are: i) Whether the appeal site is a suitable location for residential development having regard to the local development strategy and access to facilities and services; ii) The effect of the proposal on biodiversity; iii) The effect of the proposal on highway safety; and iv) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with regard to loss of boundary vegetation.

Policy SS1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 – 2029 (adopted 2016) (the Local Plan) establishes the Council’s spatial strategy for housing delivery. The policy generally directs new housing to locations within existing settlement policy boundaries (SPB) or on sites allocated within the development plan. The policy does allow for residential developments to be permitted outside of defined SPB, but only where it would comply with exception criteria established elsewhere in the Local Plan.

Despite not being isolated, the appeal site is situated in a rural setting, a considerable distance outside of any defined SPB. In planning policy terms, it is within the open countryside, as defined under the Local Plan.

Local Plan Policy SS6 identifies a limited set of exceptions whereby new housing development in the countryside would be supported. Of potential relevance to the appeal is criterion (e) that permits small scale residential proposals of a scale and type to meet a locally agreed need, subject to further specified criteria.

The Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, a matter that I will return to as part of my planning balance below. However, the exception under Policy SS6(e) is specific in that it relates to a locally agreed need for dwellings, as opposed to general housing needs across the authority area. The policy’s supporting text further sets out the expectations for demonstrating the local need for certain scale and types of homes. No robust evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would satisfy an identified local need, as such, it does not meet the exception at SS6(e).

Additionally, the proposal has not been demonstrated to accord with any of the other exceptions for new dwellings in the countryside outlined under Policy SS6 or SS1.

The appeal site is located a considerable distance from facilities and services available within Tadley. Moreover, the road leading to the appeal site is rural in character, and although lightly trafficked is unlit and without separate footpath provision within the vicinity of the site. The wider surrounding area is also subject to intermittent footpath provision, generally without streetlighting and often limited surveillance, while the A340 leading to Tadley also appeared to contain a significant volume of traffic travelling at high speeds.

Whilst rural locations are often not served by footpaths or streetlighting, due to the distances involved and the nature of the surrounding highway network, I consider it highly likely that most future residents would be deterred from walking or cycling to access day-to-day facilities and services. This deterrent would be even greater for the elderly, those with young children, or during adverse weather and hours of darkness.

The nearest public transport options are bus stops located approximately 450m from the site that provide fairly regular services to Tadley, Inhurst and Basingstoke. Again though, the bus stops are accessed via the rural roads described above. Whilst this may not deter all potential future occupiers from utilising bus services, it remains that I do not consider the site’s context would offer convenient or realistic options for travel by sustainable modes of transport.

Future residents of the appeal proposal are therefore likely to be heavily reliant on the use of private vehicles to access most services and facilities. This would be the least sustainable travel option.

In reaching the above view, I have considered the appeal decision for land adjacent to Blackstocks Lane1. Notwithstanding that I do not have the full background details of that case, the appeal site occupied an entirely different location within the authority area, such that the precise context is likely to differ. Additionally, the Inspector’s findings highlighted that the site was in close walking distance of the bus stops.

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

The inclusion of electric vehicle charging points may support low-emission travel, but it does not reduce car dependency or achieve the core policy objective of minimising the need to travel. There is also no robust evidence that the site’s location would consistently result in shorter vehicle trips than other locations, and even if it did, this would not justify the proposal given it remains fundamentally reliant on private vehicles. Increased opportunities for home working, the delivery of goods, or supplying residents with travel information do not override the requirement to locate development where suitable sustainable transport options exist.

Bringing the above together, I find the appeal site is not a suitable location for residential development having regard to the local development strategy and access to facilities and services. The appeal scheme therefore conflicts with Local Plan Policies SS1, SS6 and CN9. Together amongst other matters, these policies set out the Council’s spatial strategy for development and seek for new development to minimise the need to travel, promote opportunities for sustainable transport modes and improve accessibility to services.

The Council’s decision notice also refers to Local Plan Policy SD1, which relates to a presumption in favour of sustainable development and closely reflects Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whether the proposal complies with Policy SD1 will form part of my final planning balance.

Local Plan Policy EM4 establishes that development will only be permitted if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development can be avoided or, if that is not possible, adequately mitigated. The policy further identifies that applications for development must include adequate and proportionate information to enable a proper assessment of the implications for biodiversity.

The appellant’s submitted ecological evidence indicates that the site has potential to support a range of species with further survey work identified as being necessary in relation to dormice, bats, great crested newts, as well as botanical surveys to determine the value of the other neutral grassland on the site.

As advised by Circular 06/2005 it is essential that up-to-date ecology information, including all necessary survey, assessment and mitigation information is available to the decision maker prior to determination, particularly where development may 1 Appeal Ref: APP/H1705/W/25/3368891 affect protected species. This is to ensure that harm can be avoided or where necessary and appropriate it can be mitigated.

Based on the available information, there is a reasonable likelihood that protected species may be present on site. In the absence of appropriate survey work I cannot be satisfied that the proposal would safeguard biodiversity including protected species. Accordingly, taking a precautionary approach, I must find that the development would cause harm to biodiversity and thus would conflict with Local Plan Policy EM4.

The appeal site comprises two parcels of land either side of a shared private access road from [site address] , which currently serves four dwellings.

[site address] is a rural highway subject to a 30mph posted speed limit, with several direct property accesses. In the vicinity of the appeal site there is no carriageway segregation, meaning vehicle positioning within the highway is likely to vary.

Based on the context of the highway, including its 30mph speed limit, visibility splays of 2m x 43m to the nearest kerbside edge should be sought at the site access. The evidence before me indicates that the achievable visibility splays, including through recent vegetation clearance, fall substantially below this.

The appellant’s evidence, including automatic traffic count data and a Crashmap review, shows that [site address] carries very low traffic volumes and has no recorded accidents within the last 25 years. While this suggests a low likelihood of conflict with oncoming vehicles when exiting the site, it does not overcome the severely restricted visibility. Indeed, drivers leaving the site would be unable to adequately observe approaching vehicles without edging into the carriageway and their potential path.

Although the proposal would add only three dwellings, it would nevertheless represent a significant intensification in the use of an access with substantially deficient visibility splays. Furthermore, the available evidence indicates that further improvements to visibility are unlikely to be achievable due to land ownership constraints. The proposal would therefore result in an unacceptable risk to highway safety.

The access road is approximately 125m long and is not wide enough for two cars to pass. Nonetheless, it already serves several properties, and passing places could be provided beyond the initial site entrance through the use of a planning condition. This would not though overcome the visibility concerns with the access.

I therefore find that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on highway safety. Accordingly, it conflicts with Local Plan Policies CN9 and EM10, insofar as these policies seek to promote safe, suitable and convenient access in new developments.

The appeal site is located within an attractive and verdant rural setting, where mature boundary vegetation along [site address] makes a positive contribution to local character and visual amenity. However, this vegetation is not continuous in nature, with numerous breaks in hedgerows and other boundary planting along the streetscene to accommodate vehicular accesses. In addition, a variety of formal boundary treatments, including gates, fencing and entrance features, are evident throughout the area. These elements collectively demonstrate that interruptions to boundary vegetation are an established and commonplace feature of the local streetscape.

Some vegetation at the site entrance has already been cleared, and vegetation encroaching onto the adopted highway can be managed through routine maintenance. However, as previously noted, much of the vegetation that would need to be removed or maintained to achieve the required visibility splays lies within third-party ownership. As it has not been demonstrated that the necessary works can be secured, no significant loss of boundary hedgerow or vegetation can be assumed.

Accordingly, I do not consider the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, having regard to loss of boundary vegetation. In respect of this main issue, the appeal scheme therefore complies with Local Plan Policies EM1 and EM10. Together, amongst other matters, these policies seek to deliver high-quality development that is sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area.

During my site visit there were examples of other dwellings nearby that appeared to be of fairly new construction, as well as other on-going development activity. Meanwhile, the appellant has highlighted that other residential developments along [site address] have previously been accepted by the Council under the ‘tilted balance’. Be that as it may, I have a lack of specific background context, including the planning histories of those sites and the circumstances under which the developments were approved. As such, I cannot make suitable comparisons to the appeal scheme.

The proposal would contribute to housing supply in an area where there is currently a shortage. There would also be socio-economic benefits associated with the construction and future occupation of the proposed dwellings. Given the scale and nature of the proposal I consider such benefits would though be modest.

Through being contrary to the Council’s spatial strategy for development, as well as the potential adverse effects on biodiversity, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, and from the evidence before me, there is a significant shortfall in supply of around only 3 years. Paragraph 11d) of the Framework is therefore engaged.

The proposal would align with the aims of the Framework to significantly boost the supply of housing and its recognition that small-scale developments can make an important contribution to meeting housing requirements. It may also provide some socio-economic benefits through adding to the mix of dwelling types available in this area and through future residents support for local services, including the local [name]. Notwithstanding the extent of housing shortfall, the proposal relates to three dwellings and therefore the benefits would be modest. Still, in light of the housing land supply shortfall, the potential benefits attract moderate weight.

An absence of harm in respect of matters including the character and appearance of the area, living conditions of residents or flood risk carry neutral weight in the

The location of the proposed dwelling would mean occupiers would be highly reliant on the car to access day to day facilities and services. This would be contrary to the Frameworks effort to promote patterns of growth that limit the need to travel and offer genuine choice of transport modes. Additionally, it would conflict with the Framework’s aims to conserve the natural environment and promote safe travel. These are matters to which I attribute significant weight.

Overall, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits I outline above, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore does not apply, whilst the appeal scheme also conflicts with Local Plan Policy SD1.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the provision of the Framework, that justify a decision other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.