Appeal 6004267

The appeal is dismissed.

The site is within the North Wessex Downs National Landscape. Within this protected landscape, I have a duty to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing its natural beauty. The council concluded that the proposed scheme would have a neutral effect on the surrounding landscape, and I see no reason to disagree. I am therefore satisfied that my statutory duty is discharged.

The main issue is whether the appeal site is in a suitable location for residential development having regard to local policies relating to the distribution of development, sustainable transportation and access to services.

The appeal site comprises a defined field with hedgerow and timber fencing boundaries adjacent to a small hamlet of four dwellings, a garden centre and a small number of industrial units within the open countryside to the southwest of Newbury. The hamlet does not benefit from a settlement boundary and therefore the appeal site is located within the countryside for planning policy purposes. The existing dwellings are large, detached properties set back in spacious plots next to one another. The garden centre is to the opposite side of the road, and the industrial units are located to its rear.

Policies SS1 and SS6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 – 2029 (the Local Plan) set out the spatial development strategy which focuses development within existing settlement policy boundaries (SPBs) and makes provision for residential development outside said boundaries in specific circumstances. Amongst other things, Policy CN9 of the Local Plan seeks to enable genuine transport choice and a modal shift away from the car by minimising the need to travel, promoting opportunities for sustainable transport modes and improving accessibility to services with the overall objective of supporting the transition to a low carbon future.

Policy HO2 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2022 – 2029 (the Neighbourhood Plan) consolidates this approach, seeking to maintain the existing open nature of the countryside and ensure that development is in a suitable location for its purpose in terms of accessing facilities, services and public transport. Taken together, the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan form the development plan for the area.

Policy SS6 of the Local Plan sets out the circumstances in which residential development outside of the SPBs might be considered acceptable. The council sets out that none of the exception clauses apply in this case and the evidence does not lead me to reach a different conclusion.

Regarding criterion e) of Policy SS6, there is nothing before me to suggest that the proposed development would meet a locally agreed need other than the borough’s general housing need. The Neighbourhood Plan was made in February 2023, and its policies are consistent with the Local Plan in seeking to protect the rural character of the parish. A requirement for an allocation for 10 new dwellings set out within the Local Plan has been met and significantly exceeded by a 65- dwelling development in the parish. The evidence therefore indicates that there is no demonstrated unmet need for housing in the area.

Facilities in the vicinity of the site comprise the Yew Tree Garden Centre and Cafe. There are no safe routes to and from the site for pedestrians, with the site opening onto a straight section of 60mph road which encourages higher vehicle speeds. There are no streetlights and the roadside features vegetated raised banking and drainage channels which are unsuitable for walking. While the proposed development includes provision for secure, covered cycle storage, on-road cycling would necessitate sharing the carriageway with fast moving vehicles and is therefore only likely to be undertaken by more confident cyclists.

Shops, healthcare facilities, education establishments and other typical daily services are a considerable distance from the appeal site. Limited public transport services are available but not safely accessible on foot. Occupiers of the proposed dwelling would therefore likely be wholly reliant on private car-based travel to access dispersed facilities and services. While an electric vehicle charging point would be provided in line with Building Regulations, the proposed development would fail to adequately comply with policies and objectives which seek to establish patterns of development that would reduce the need to travel and enable access to facilities by a choice of sustainable modes.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the appeal site is not in a suitable location for residential development having regard to local policies relating to the distribution of development, sustainable transportation and access to services. It would therefore be contrary to Policies SS1, SS6 and CN9 of the Local Plan and Policy HO2 of the Neighbourhood Plan which together focus on securing sustainable development by way of a spatial strategy focussed on defined SPBs and specific criteria for residential development within the countryside.

Permission in Principle for a single residential dwelling was granted by the council in relation to this site in May 2021 and has now expired. A subsequent application for [name] (TDC) was dismissed at appeal due to the harmful effect of the scheme upon the character and appearance of the area. The appellant sought to address this harm in a new full application, the subject of this appeal.

The appellant contends that the council’s reasoning in granting the Permission in Principle remains applicable. However, the development plan has changed in the intervening period. Whilst the Local Plan policies remain the same, the Neighbourhood Plan and its policies have been ‘made’ and form part of the development plan. In addition, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), in particular paragraph 11d), has been updated. Accordingly, while I have had regard to the previous decision, this appeal must be determined according to the current development plan and material considerations at the time of this decision.

I have been directed to an appeal decision addressing the materiality of the change to the NPPF between 2022 and 2025. However, the circumstances of that appeal and the context in which the NPPF was being applied, comprised a genuine fallback position of an extant residential permission. The appeal is therefore not sufficiently comparable and has not been determinative in my consideration of this appeal. In any case, each appeal must be considered on its own merits, and I have approached this appeal accordingly.

That the council has now found no harm in respect of the design of the proposed development and its effects on the character and appearance of the area and the North Wessex Downs National Landscape, alongside the absence of harm in relation to matters including design, highway safety, trees, neighbour amenity, flooding, and waste are all neutral considerations that do not weigh for or against the proposal. The provision of an electric vehicle charging point and cycle storage are ordinary requirements of policy and building regulations and similarly do not carry weight in favour of granting the appeal.

The provision of a dwelling would contribute towards meeting the housing needs of the borough. There is dispute between the main parties over the council’s housing land supply position, but in both cases the figures represent a significant shortfall against the 5-year requirement. The council’s housing supply position has worsened considerably since the Permission in Principle decision in 2021.

Alongside benefits in respect of housing provision, there would be short term economic benefits during the construction period, and ongoing social and economic benefits upon occupation, arising from the use of services and facilities in the surrounding area. The proposed scheme would also incorporate photovoltaic panels to the garage roof in line with development plan and NPPF ambitions towards a low-carbon future, and the landscape and biodiversity value of the site could be enhanced by a suitable landscaping scheme. I will carry these matters forward into my planning balance.

The parties are in agreement that the council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF therefore falls to be considered. In these circumstances, this sets out that planning 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 NPPF 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.

Even as a single dwelling, the proposed development would provide much needed housing against a significant shortfall and would contribute to the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes. There would also be economic and social benefits both during the construction and in the subsequent occupation of a dwelling. However, these benefits would be tempered by the absence of a locally agreed need for housing in [site address] Parish, and as a result of the limited services and facilities in the local area or available sustainable transport options. In this context, in totality with the modest renewable energy, landscape, and biodiversity enhancements, the benefits associated with the single dwelling would be small.

Conversely, I have found conflict with the development plan in respect of its spatial strategy for housing set out by Policies SS1 and SS6 of the Local Plan, supported by policies CN9 of the Local Plan and Policy HO2 of the Neighbourhood Plan. The SPBs form part of the statutory development plan and will have been adopted following consultation and scrutiny at examination. To allow new dwellings to be built outside of these areas, even in small numbers, would undermine the council’s development strategy for the location of housing in settlements and the countryside. This harm would be significantly felt within the [site address] parish area.

While the council’s housing land supply position indicates that these policies are deemed to be out of date, the NPPF reinforces the development plan’s approach to locating development in rural areas, stating that decisions should reflect local circumstances and needs. It also sets out that sustainable transport modes should be prioritised, and that rural housing should be located to enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

I understand that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. However, alongside its policies above, the NPPF also seeks to ensure that applications for development give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements; and second, so far as possible, to facilitating access to high quality public transport. The proposal’s limited accessibility to day-to-day services and facilities, and the reliance of future occupiers on the use of a private car would mean that it would conflict with these aims of the NPPF.

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that where a Neighbourhood Plan has been made within the preceding 5 years and makes appropriate allocations to meet the identified local housing requirement, the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with it is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development. As identified above, the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan was made in February 2023, and the demonstrated housing need has been more than met by a 65-dwelling development in the parish.

Accordingly, while there is a very great need for more housing, taking into account the harm identified, the status of the Neighbourhood Plan, and having particular regard to the NPPF’s key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, the adverse impacts in this case significantly and demonstrably outweigh the relatively small benefits that would arise. Therefore, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined at paragraph 11 of the NPPF.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the NPPF, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. As such, the appeal is dismissed.