Appeal 6004272

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: -the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and -whether the development would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers with particular regard to the quality of outdoor amenity space.

[site address] is a semi-detached dwelling with a hipped roof occupying a spacious corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. The property is in use as a House in [name]. Dwellings in the area predominantly comprise rows of hipped roof semi-detached dwellings bookended by semi-detached dwellings occupying corner plots. Dwellings occupying corner plots have generally retained their generous plot sizes, contributing to a degree of spaciousness within the area. Whilst there is a single row of terrace dwellings at [address], this is not within the immediate context of the site and terraced properties are not widespread or a particular characteristic of the area. The regular pattern of development in the surrounding area creates a pleasant sense of uniformity to which the appeal site contributes positively.

The proposal is for the erection of a 2-storey dwelling attached to the host property forming a terraced row of 3 dwellings. The dwelling would be constructed using materials consistent with the host property. However, the dwelling’s terraced form would contrast markedly with the form of dwellings in the area, and its narrow width would give the impression that the dwelling has been shoe-horned into the plot. These factors would combine to create a contrived form of development which would appear as an incongruent addition to the street scene at odds with the form and layout of dwellings which characterise the area.

In support of the proposal reference is made to an existing permission for the erection of a 2-storey side extension and front porch1. There is no dispute that this permission could be implemented although I have limited information about whether there would be an intention to build that extension if this appeal were dismissed. However, there would seem a greater than just theoretical possibility that this alternative would take place. Based on the information before me this extension appears to be of the same scale as the appeal proposal.

Notwithstanding the above, the previous consent would be clearly identifiable as an extension and would read as such within the street scene. The appeal proposal, with its separate front door, would be clearly identifiable as a separate dwelling, where its smaller scale and terraced form would be at odds with the scale and layout of dwellings within the area. If the alternative fallback scheme were implemented, it would be less harmful to the character and appearance of the area. There is no compelling evidence before me that these alterations, including the creation of a separate front door, would fall under the scope of householder permitted development rights. I therefore give limited weight to this decision.

Reference has been made to a decision at 11a Honeysuckle Road2. Each case must be considered on its individual merits and considerations of character and appearance are inherently site-specific. The full details of that proposal and its site context are not before me. Therefore, I am unable to draw any comparisons between that application and the appeal proposal.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Conflict therefore arises with those aims of policies BAS1 and BAS4 of the Bassett Neighbourhood Plan (2016), saved policies SDP7 and SDP9 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (2015) (LPR) and policy CS13 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2015). Collectively these policies seek to ensure that development is of a high quality and in keeping with the scale, massing and height of neighbouring buildings and should complement the street scene, with particular reference to the scale, spacing, massing, materials and height of neighbouring properties. I also find conflict with the [name] (2016) (RDG) which states that careful consideration should be given to the redevelopment of corner plots and that extensions on corners will not be permitted where they damage the street scene.

Whilst referenced in the reason for refusal, I find no conflict with LPR policy SDP1 which relates to the health, safety and amenity of the city and its citizens

The proposed 2-bedroom dwelling would have a rear garden which would meet the minimum private amenity space standards set out in the RDG. Given the tapered plot shape, parts of this garden would be sited close to the windowed rear elevations of the neighbouring properties and the host dwelling, resulting in a degree of overlooking. Nonetheless, there would be parts of the proposed garden which would not be the subject of this overlooking, and I am satisfied that future 1 23/01562/FUL 2 19/01987/FUL occupiers would be provided with areas of usable amenity space fit for its intended purpose. I also note that the proposed amenity space would be consistent with the form and layout of gardens in the surrounding area in terms of its scale, tapered form and relationship to the windows to neighbouring properties.

The development would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers with regard to the quality of outdoor amenity space. It would therefore accord with LPR policy SDP1 which states that planning permission will only be granted for development which does not unacceptably affect the health, safety and amenity of the city and its citizens. I also find no conflict with the RDG which states that private amenity space should be fit for the purpose intended and that rear gardens should have useable space with some privacy.

The site is located close to the Solent and Dorset Coast Special Protection Area (SPA), the Solent and [name]/Ramsar site and the New Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC)/ SPA/ Ramsar site in which development activities can impact the qualifying features and integrity of European sites. The appellant has submitted a [name] with the appeal which includes the payment of £696 towards the cost of measures to mitigate the impact of the residential development on the European sites. However, as I have found harm in relation to the first main issue, it is not necessary in this instance to undertake an appropriate assessment to consider the development’s effect on the European sites.

It is stated that the appellant has gone to great lengths to engage with the Council, including changes to the design of the proposal following pre-application engagement. Nonetheless, these amendments have failed to address the development’s harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area.

In support of the proposal the appellant references the December 2025 draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (the draft Framework), which, it is stated, identifies infill development within residential curtilages and the redevelopment of under-utilised land as being fundamental to delivering housing in sustainable locations. However, the draft Framework could change following consultation, and I therefore cannot be certain that the draft Framework will be published in the same form, reducing the weight to be afforded to the policies in it. Furthermore, there is no indication that the promotion of infill development should be at the expense of good design, itself a key component of sustainable development as set out in the published National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). I therefore afford limited weight to the draft Framework.

The Council confirms that it is currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. 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) ii. of the Framework is engaged. This requires 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 for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The proposal would make a small contribution towards housing supply on a small site with good access to facilities and public transport. The energy-efficient dwelling would contribute to the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes and would help meet an identified local housing need. There would also be short-term economic benefits associated with construction, and in the longer-term contributions would be made by future occupiers to the local economy. These matters weigh in favour of the scheme and, when factoring in the supply shortfall, attract moderate and meaningful weight as a scheme benefit.

On the other hand, I have found that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. Chapter 12 of the Framework sets out that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. I give significant weight to the conflict with the development plan policies in this area.

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.