Appeal 6004223

The appeal is dismissed.

The development description in the above banner heading is taken from the decision notice rather than the application form. This is because the plans provided with this appeal show a proposed detached dwelling rather than semi-detached.

The application form indicates that the proposal would deliver self-build and custom housebuilding (SBCH), and this is also reflected in the officer report. The appeal submission includes a completed s106 agreement that seeks to secure, amongst other things, the proposed dwelling as SBCH. Therefore, I have accepted this s106 agreement as part of the appeal considerations, and I have determined the proposal as SBCH, as this would not prejudice interested parties.

The first reason for refusal cites conflict with Section 6/Appendix 2 of the Wellow Village Design Statement 2010 (VDS). However, the Wellow Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2036 (WNP) (adopted 2024) sets out that the Wellow Parish Character Appraisal1 (WPCA), which forms part of the [name] evidence base, supersedes the VDS. As the WNP forms part of the Borough’s development plan, for the above reason the VDS is not a relevant consideration in this appeal.

Although not cited in the first refusal reason, the officer report indicates that the proposal does not accord with guidance set out in Character Area 6 ( [site address] / [address]) of the WPCA, where the appeal site is located. This matter thus forms part of the appeal considerations. Reference is also made to the Wellow Parish Design Code, and the WPCA advises that its key findings for each Character Area should be used to inform and support the [name]. However, no design code is included in the WPCA or elsewhere in [name]. I have determined the appeal accordingly. 1 V5.2 - June 2019 and revised April 2024

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

The appeal site comprises a detached bungalow and several outbuildings. It is accessed off [site address] , which is a private and relatively narrow road with no footways. The bungalow, Appledore, is sited at significant distance from the site’s side boundaries. It is within a residential area, characterised by a mixture of single-storey dwellings, chalet bungalows and two-storey houses. These provide a variety of ridge heights, plot widths and patterns, and architectural styles. Appledore is of considerably lower height than the dwellings to each side. It is thus not surprising that it has extant permission for extensions, including a bulkier roof form.

[name] of Character Area 6 ( [site address] / [address]), as described in the WPCA, include a wooded setting, some remaining extensive plot sizes, with no dominant style or appearance identified from the 1960s onwards. Although [site address] is not explicitly referenced, I found its streetscene to mainly reflect the above characteristics. Given the wide plot widths and the considerable gaps between the main dwellings, [site address] has a spacious and verdant appearance and feel.

At the time of my visit, I found the site’s immediate environs to be also visually influenced by two storey dwellings within surrounding residential estate roads, including [address]. Such dwellings have many common design features, and have similar heights and roof forms. They are sited much closer together than the dwellings accessed off [site address] . Thus, they appear more typically suburban than the dwellings accessed off [site address] . As none of them have access off [site address] , they mainly form more of a backdrop setting than as principal features.

The above setting makes the site’s surrounding context somewhat more diverse than the prevailing characteristics of [site address] forming its approach. Another divergence from [site address] ’s prevailing characteristics is the appeal site’s frontage, as it has no trees or hedgerow. This contains a closeboard fence to be removed to facilitate open access to both Appledore and the proposed dwelling, along with a wide driveway and gravelled parking and turning area.

The spacious setting of the appeal site nonetheless forms a positive contribution to the character of the surrounding area. In this context, and when viewed from [site address] , the proposed new dwelling would not sit comfortably between the existing dwellings to each side. It would be sited very close to the dwelling of Appledore, and its two-storey form would have a much more discernible impact than the outbuildings in which it would replace.

The new dwelling would therefore appear as a conspicuous addition that would appear very squeezed in to a narrow plot. Its elongated form relative to surrounding dwellings further accentuates its cramped form and contrived layout.

Implementation of the Appledore extensions would not change the new dwelling plot frontage being read as substantially narrower than the immediately surrounding plots. This, along with the elongated footprint, and the separation gaps to the dwellings to each side, would collectively make the new dwelling appear very out of kilter when compared to surrounding plot rhythms. The appeal scheme would therefore greatly detract from the spacious character of the site and the surrounding area.

Given the varying roof heights along [site address] , the proposed higher eaves and ridge, relative to either the existing or extended Appledore, would not in itself be visually harmful. This would however further draw the eye to the discordant siting and layout of proposal, despite the avoidance of significant disruption to the building lines to each side.

I accept that the spacing between the proposed dwelling and Appledore would not be very different to the spacing between the two [address] dwellings beyond Appledore. However, these nearby dwellings have substantially wider plots and planting along their boundaries with [site address] . These examples thus do not justify allowing this appeal.

I therefore conclude that the proposed new dwelling would substantially harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It therefore conflicts with Policy E1 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan Development Plan Document (RLP) (adopted 2016), and Policy WP-B2 of the WNP. Collectively, these policies require, amongst other things, development to be to a high standard of design and to integrate, respect and complement the character of the area in which the development is located (including the relevant WPCA Character Area), including in terms of layout.

WNP Policy WP-B2 also states that where the proposed development is significantly different from the surrounding identified character, adequate justification should be provided. Given the substantial level of harm that I have identified terms of the character and appearance of the surrounding area, I have found no such justification.

The plans before me show the first-floor front dormers to be centred over the fenestration below. It is not uncommon, even in more spacious residential settings, to see first floor window glazing being smaller than that below it, or non-symmetrical solar panel layouts on roofs. Given that there is some variety of porch designs in the vicinity, the proposed front porch would also not be harmful. An appropriate external materials palette for the area could be secured by means of a suitably worded planning condition.

Compared to the existing, no significant new hardstanding would be required. I have thus also found no harm in this respect. Given the proposed access arrangements, I envisage that only a limited amount of new soft landscaping could be planted in the front area. I have thus found no harm in the above regards. These design and landscaping measures would not however mitigate the substantially adverse visual impact that I have identified.

The site is within influencing distance of the New Forest Special Protection Area in respect of recreational impacts. In terms of nitrogen effects, it is also within influencing distance of various other [name] and Ramsar sites. To address the second and third reasons for refusal, the completed s106 agreement seeks to provide mitigation measures for the above impacts arising from the proposal.

In such circumstances, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitat Regulations) require that permission may only be granted after having ascertained that it will not affect the integrity of the [name] and Ramsar sites. However, as I am dismissing the appeal on another substantive ground, I have not considered this matter further. It has therefore not been necessary for me to carry out an Appropriate Assessment as required by the Habitat Regulations.

No objection has been raised by the County Highway Authority, or the Borough’s tree officer and ecologist. There is no evidence before me indicating that the site is located within an area of flood risk. No designated heritage assets (DHAs) are within the site, nor is it within a conservation area or within the setting of a DHA. These matters however neither weigh in favour nor against allowing this appeal.

The proposal derives some support from [name] COM1 and COM2 which encourage housing delivery within settlements, and WNP Policy WP-H3 which sets out that infill development, including self-build residential, will be supported in principle on sites within settlements. However, RLP Policy COM2 sets out that within the settlement boundaries, the principle of development will be permitted provided that it is appropriate to the other RLP policies. WNP Policy WP-H3 also sets out that all proposals must comply with other policies of the WNP.

In this respect, I have found substantial conflict with RLP Policy E1 and WNP Policy WP-B2 in respect of the character and appearance of the area. The extent of policy conflict I have identified amounts to conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The officer report indicates that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. My attention is also drawn to a planning application determined in November 2025 for a new dwelling at the nearby [address]. In the committee report for that application, the LPA reported a housing land supply of 2.76 years. This has not been disputed by the LPA and indicates a significant shortfall.

Given the above circumstances, paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged. There is nothing before me to indicate that the policies in the Framework’s footnote 7 are relevant in this case. Hence, the balance in paragraph 11d)ii is applicable. This sets out 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 including those for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, and securing well-designed places.

The SBCH Act 2015 (as amended) puts a duty on the LPA to grant planning permission in respect of enough serviced plots of land to meet the demand for SBCH in the Borough. The PPG describes the benefits of SBCH as helping to add diversity to the housing market and increase consumer choice. It facilitates people to create designs and layouts to suit their specific needs, and this adds some further weight in favour of the proposal.

The Framework sets out that small and windfall sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, including SBCH, and are often built out relatively quickly. Provision of one new dwelling would be small in scale relative to the Borough’s overall need. However, as SBCH, it would provide for a specific type of housing need in response to the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes.

The site is also within a defined settlement boundary, surrounded by existing residences, and the proposal would replace existing buildings. In this context, the proposal would form an efficient use of land. Although at some distance to facilities and services to support everyday residential needs, proximity to the bus service on the A36 would mean that future occupiers would not be solely reliant on private car use. Given all the above, including the indicated extent of housing supply shortfall, the associated benefits of the proposal are afforded significant weight.

The new dwelling would benefit from solar panels on the front and rear of the main roof. There is also the likelihood that an air source heat pump would be utilised for the heating system. Given the scale of the proposal, these environmental benefits are afforded limited weight.

the Framework sets out that the efficient use of land should take into account the importance of securing well-designed places. As set out in the above Main Issue, I have found that the proposal is not well-designed in terms of its siting and layout, and the Framework states that development that is not well designed should be refused. Moreover, the Framework also sets out that planning decisions should ensure that development is visually attractive as a result of layout, and sympathetic to local character.

In the specific circumstances of this appeal, the adverse impacts I have identified would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations before me, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.