Appeal 6004080

The appeal is dismissed.

Two planning obligations have been submitted with the appeal in relation to the delivery of [name] (BNG) and the payment of a biodiversity gain land monitoring contribution. The Council has been given the opportunity to comment on these planning obligations. On this basis, I do not consider that any party would be unfairly prejudiced, and I therefore have had consideration to these in my

The main issues are: - whether the proposal is in a suitable location for housing, having regard to the spatial strategy of the development plan and access to services; - whether the proposal makes adequate provision for BNG and its monitoring; and - the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area including the scenic beauty of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape (NL).

The site comprises part of a field which is bordered by fields to the west and south. To the east the site borders the A343, which connects to the site via a track. It is proposed to erect a detached dwelling.

Policy SS1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2016) (LP) sets out the district’s strategy for housing delivery, directing development primarily to Settlement Policy Boundaries and allocated sites. The site is not within a Settlement Policy Boundary and is thus in the countryside. LP Policy SS6 sets out exceptions that enable housing to be provided in the countryside, which includes small scale residential proposals of a scale and type that meet a locally agreed need provided that specific criteria are met, including that they are well related to the existing settlement and would not result in an isolated form of development.

The development would comprise a small-scale residential proposal and the site is not considered to be isolated in the context of paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). However, there is no evidence that the development would relate to an existing settlement, and no locally agreed need has been put forward. Given this, the development would introduce a dwelling in an open countryside location which would conflict with the LP’s spatial strategy.

Access to the services and facilities in nearby Highclere involves sections of the A343, a heavily trafficked, unlit road with no footpath or crossing facilities. At my early afternoon site visit I observed that traffic volumes on this road were high. Whilst this is a snapshot in time, there is nonetheless nothing in the evidence before me which indicates that these observations are atypical of the area. Given these conditions, journeys on foot or by bike to nearby settlements, and to bus stops serving larger settlements, may be undesirable to the dwelling’s occupiers. Additionally, services and facilities in Highclere are limited, and do not include those necessary for day-to-day living such as employment, supermarket shopping and education, resulting in a high probability that residents of the new dwelling would drive into larger settlements, rather than walk or cycle.

As a result of these conditions, residents of the dwelling would likely be highly dependent on the private vehicle, the least sustainable mode of transportation. Whilst the Framework recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, this does not justify siting development in a location which would, by virtue of the local highway conditions and relationship to services and facilities, be inherently dependent on the private vehicle. Whilst there are other residential units in the area, this fails to overcome the reliance on car-based modes of transport.

In support of the proposal the appellant references appeal decisions for sites, which, it is stated, have a similar relationship to local services as the appeal site. However, in the Land north of [address] appeal decision1 the Inspector acknowledged the Council’s view that the proposal would represent a sustainable form of development with access to services and facilities either locally or via limited car journeys and public transport, and in the [address], [address] appeal decision2 the Inspector commented that [address] is a quiet rural lane directly joining the B3051 and that the B3051 has a pavement and provides a safe walking environment into [address], leading them to conclude that it would be possible for some to walk to a limited number of services. Based on the evidence before me these site contexts appear to differ from the appeal site in terms of the relationship to services and local highway conditions.

The proposal conflicts with the spatial strategy and there would be shortcomings in accessibility to facilities and services resulting in a dependency on the private vehicle, thereby failing to represent a sustainable form of development. Conflict thus arises with LP policies SD1, SS1 and SS6 as set out above. 1 APP/H1705/W/25/3371018 2 APP/H1705/W/25/3361625

BNG is a mandatory requirement of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021) which sets out an objective for development to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat. The proposal states that an increase of 28.64% habitat units and 185.19% hedgerow units would be delivered offsite, resulting in a 28% net gain in biodiversity.

The planning obligations submitted with the appeal do not include a schedule containing the habitat enhancement works or set out how these works would be managed. The implementation of the [name] and Monitoring Plan is unclear, and the obligations do not include any clauses that secure the need for the offsite biodiversity gains to be registered and allocated to the development. The obligations do not set out what the ‘[name] fee would be. I cannot therefore be assured that the fee that would be paid would be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development, including whether it would meet the Council’s estimated cost of monitoring the implementation of the BNG plan over the lifetime of the obligation.

There is no obligation before me which would satisfactorily deliver BNG and its monitoring. The proposal therefore fails to comply with the statutory requirements of the Environment Act 2021 and would conflict with those aims of LP policy EM4 which require that proposals include proportionate measures to contribute to a net gain in biodiversity. I also find conflict with Chapter 15 of the Framework which requires that decisions contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, amongst other matters, providing net gains for biodiversity.

The site is located in the NL, a protected landscape, and I am required to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing its natural beauty3. The site is located in the Highclere and Burghclere Landscape Character Area (LCA) which the Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Character Assessment (2021) (BDLCA) refers to as a gently undulating diverse landscape of varied topography, covered by a medium to small-scale mosaic of woodland, mixed farmland and paddocks, creating a relatively enclosed, well treed and intimate character. The BDLCA states that the landscape has a coherent and balanced character, parts of which have become urbanised in character. The suburbanising influence of built development and roads is identified as a key issue within the LCA.

The North Wessex Downs National Landscape Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2025 – 2030 states that all change within the NL should be landscape-led and should seek to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, tranquillity and distinctive landscape character of the NL and its setting. It goes on to state that proposals that would fail to further the National Landscape purposes should be resisted.

The site is accessed via a narrow lane overhung by vegetation and forms part of a gently undulating field which is bordered by a thick screen of vegetation. Given the thick screen of boundary vegetation, there are limited views of the site from 3 Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 surrounding land. The nearest public right of way (PUBROW) is located approximately 500m to the south of the site. Given the separation distance and intervening vegetation there is limited intervisibility between the site and the PUBROW. The surrounding area includes farmland, paddocks, dwellings and equestrian uses and associated paraphernalia. This, in combination with the vegetation-lined lane results in a verdant, semi-rural character to the surrounding area. Nonetheless, the site is seen in the context of surrounding built form, and, given the lack of visibility from surrounding land, makes a limited contribution to the landscape qualities of the NL.

The dwelling would be partly submerged by the sloping site and would have the appearance of a converted agricultural building. It would be constructed using dark timber cladding and brick and would be separated from the dwelling to the south by an extensive paddock area. Views of the dwelling from the surrounding area would be limited to the site access and glimpses through gaps in the boundary vegetation in which the dwelling would be seen in the context of other built form. The overall level of hard landscaping would be limited, and the dwelling’s form, design and scale would not appear incongruous within its semi-rural setting. The site would retain its verdant character and would not detract from the surrounding pattern of farmland or the established character of the surrounding area. Given the site’s limited contribution to the special qualities and the scenic beauty of the NL and the development’s limited scale and lack of visibility from surrounding land, there would be no harm to the scenic beauty of the NL.

For the above reasons, the development would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would ensure that the natural beauty of the NL would be conserved. I therefore find no conflict with LP policies EM1 and EM10 which require that proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area including landscape features. I also find no conflict with the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018) and the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document (2018) which have similar aims. I find no conflict with the Framework which promotes development that conserves and enhances the landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes.

[address], a grade II listed timber-framed building with a thatched roof, is located to the east of the site on the A343. Its significance appears to be derived from the antiquity of its fabric, from its architectural interest as a well-preserved example of a vernacular building of its type and its historic role within the local context. Intervening development in the form of the highway visually and spatially separates the site from the listed building and intervisibility between the site and [address] is limited. There is no indication that the site has any form of historic significance in association with [address]. Consequently, the development would preserve the setting and significance of this listed building.

The Council accepts that it is unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites. 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) of the Framework is engaged. This requires that permission should be granted unless the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed; or 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.

I have found that the development would not result in harm to the scenic beauty of the NL. Given this, the site’s location within the NL, an asset of particular importance as defined in footnote 7 of the Framework, does not provide a strong reason for refusing the development, and paragraph 11d) ii is engaged.

The proposal would provide one additional energy-efficient dwelling on a small site. Given the scale of housing shortfall, the contribution to the delivery of housing would be valued and so I afford this provision significant weight. There would also be economic benefits to local services and facilities during the construction and occupancy phases, which attract moderate weight in favour of the development.

The Government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of housing, and the development strategy is failing to deliver a 5-year supply of housing. This reduces the weight to be afforded to the conflict with the settlement strategy. However, I have also found that the proposal would not be in a suitable location having regard to access to facilities and services and the dependence on the private vehicle. Conflict therefore arises with Chapter 9 of the Framework which sets out that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth, prioritising sustainable transport modes. The development also fails to make adequate provision for the delivery and monitoring of BNG, resulting in conflict with Chapter 15 of the Framework which requires decisions to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by providing net gains for biodiversity. I give significant weight to the conflict with the development plan policies in these areas.

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.