Appeal 6004306

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to sever plot and erect one new dwelling at [site address] , [name], Dorset [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/FUL/2025/03229, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] and [name] against the decision of Dorset Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The appeal is accompanied by a legal agreement that has been agreed between the main parties securing the proposal as a self-build development to address matters of [name].

My attention has been drawn to two previous appeal decisions on the site1. I have had regard to both of these decisions as material considerations in determining the current appeal. Furthermore, I note that a previous Section 106 agreement covering the appeal site that prevented more than two dwellings being constructed has been discharged. This addresses the reason for the dismissal of the 2024 appeal.

I have also had regard to the appeal site being located at the edge of the St Johns Rowlands Conservation Area. However, by reason of only the planting to the south-western corner of the site being within the conservation area and given the separation of the majority of the site from the conservation area by [address] and the boundary planting, I agree with the main parties that the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. As such, I do not need to deal with this matter further. 1 APP/U1240/A/12/2174797 and APP/D1265/W/23/3323638

The main issues for the appeal are the effect of the proposed development on:  the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the Giddylake/Beaucroft Special Character Area (SCA), and  the integrity of the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation and Ramsar site (the [name]).

The appeal site comprises part of the garden to No. [site address] , a detached dwelling that is noticeably older than the majority of others in the road. The appeal site contains a number of mature trees and is partly enclosed by mature planting. As a result, there are limited views into the appeal site from the public domain.

[address] is a green, spacious cul-de-sac where, aside from the appeal site and No.12, the properties are generally of comparable age and design, featuring integral garages and occupying similarly generous plots, the majority of which are open to the road frontage.

Numbers 10, 11 and [address] fall within the SCA with the remainder of [address] falling outside of the SCA. The SCA is characterised by low density development with high architectural quality, with generous space between dwellings and significant tree and boundary hedges which provide screening and a backdrop for the houses. It is also widely characterised by dwellings fronting unmetalled roads with soft verges. Development Criteria 1 and 5 of the Giddylake/Beaucroft Special Character Area Supplementary Planning Guidance Number 27 (SPD27) seek to ensure that new development follow the established patterns of development and echo the rhythms and spacing of existing dwellings, respect the existing pattern of development, echo the scale, massing and height of existing dwellings with generous space around them.

While the plot size, size and design of the proposed dwelling and position central to its plot would not be too dissimilar to, or out of character with the development within [address], the proposal would increase the density of the plot forming No.11 and reduce the space between No’s 10 and [site address] .

By reason of the increased density and reduced space between dwellings, including through the provision of a detached garage outbuilding that would be visible from the street, the proposal would fail to follow the established pattern of development within the SCA. As such, it would be contrary to Development Criteria 1 and 5 of SPD27. [name] acknowledge that these findings depart from the 2024 appeal decision in relation to the effect on the SCA, that decision is silent with regard to the Development Criteria to SPD27 and previous appeal decision in 2012, mainly assessing compliance in relation to the development of [address] and I give more weight to the effect on the wider SCA, Development Criteria to SPD27 and previous appeal decision in 2012.

However, and while the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the wider SCA, the level of harm would be tempered by the retention of existing trees and hedges on the site, and by the resultant plot size being comparable with those immediately surrounding the site on [address]. Furthermore, the harm would be tempered by reason of No. [site address] not facing the road and the location of the appeal site off a more traditional cul-de-sac that is at the edge of the SCA not characterised by low-density development off unmetalled roads with soft verges. Views from [address] would not be harmful as they would be limited by virtue of levels differences, retained planting and as the development would be seen in the context of other residential development of a similar density.

I acknowledge that the proposal would result in the removal of a number of small trees to the frontage with [address]. I also acknowledge that the proposal has the potential to impact upon the hedge to this frontage that I note falls outside of the site within different ownership. However, the trees to this frontage include laurel, apple, and cypress that due to their smaller size, form and species, are of much less value than other larger trees on the site to the visual appearance of the SCA and immediate area. [name] acknowledge that the hedge falling outside of the site frontage could be removed, this could happen at any time, and I am satisfied that the proposed development is located a sufficient distance from the hedge to ensure significant retention. In any case, given the uncertainty in relation to this, and to ensure that a suitable soft frontage boundary is provided, a condition could be imposed to ensure that details of the final soft boundary frontage are submitted for approval. Subject to this, a suitable soft frontage to [address] could be provided that would not be harmful to the immediate area or wider SCA.

With regard to the other Development Criteria to SPD27, by reason of the protection of retained planting, usable garden sizes, traditional design of the proposed dwelling with pitched roof form and gables, no demolition of houses, position of the dwelling not resulting in pressure to fell retained trees, and subject to a condition to secure details of soft boundary treatment, I have no reason to disagree with the Council that the proposal would not be contrary to the other criteria.

Furthermore, given the differing designs and sizes of No’s 11 and [address], I do not find the proposed dwelling to be oversized, imposing or out of character with its elongated form mirroring No’s 11 and 12. Moreover, by reason of the retention of planting, provision of sizable areas of outside space and subject to a condition to ensure the submission and approval of soft boundary treatment, I find that the site would retain a semi-verdant setting and provide suitable outdoor space.

I note concerns from interested parties with regard to the position of a replacement TPO tree planting in close proximity to the proposed dwelling. However, I note the Council raise no objection to its position and in light of the retained planting to the site and within the garden to No.11, despite its close position to the dwelling being likely to restrict its future growth, I do not find that its location would significantly undermine the character and appearance of the immediate area or wider SPA.

In conclusion, and while the proposal would not detract from the character or appearance of [address], it follows from the above that the proposal would harm, albeit in a limited way, the character and appearance of the wider SCA. As such it would be contrary to Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1 – [name] 2014 (LP) which seeks to deliver high quality development which reflects and enhances areas of recognised local distinctiveness and that in Special Character Areas development must respect the identified features and characteristics.

The appeal site falls within 5km of the [name].

The Protected Sites are designated on account of the rare and vulnerable wet and dry heathland species rich habitat which support the Southern damselfly Coenagrion mercurial, and heathland bird species including nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus, Dartford warbler Sylvia undata, and [name] arborea during the breeding season, and [name] cyaneus and [name] columbarius over winter.

The Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2020-2025 Supplementary Planning Document April 2020 (SPD) seeks to secure a financial contribution and measures towards the mitigation of any effects of development within 5km of the [name] on the integrity of the [name].

The proposal would result in likely significant effects to the [name] by virtue of the provision of an additional dwelling and associated activity and recreational pressures.

The avoidance or mitigation of effects resulting from increased residential development on the [name] would be achieved through a number of measures including the provision of alternative greenspace, to redirect those who would have made use of the area recreationally, and via associated monitoring and management arrangements. The contributions that individual schemes are expected to make in that context are established at a strategic level, being funded by [name] (CIL) receipts.

As a result of the above, and given that the development is liable for CIL, the provisions provide the necessary contributions and mitigation towards ecological monitoring and management arrangements, and mitigation consistent with the Council’s approach. Natural England has confirmed that the contribution is sufficient to avoid adverse impacts on the integrity of the [name] and their features.

In conclusion on this matter, I am satisfied that with the mitigation measures in place, secured through the CIL Regulations, the development would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Dorset Heathland Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation and Ramsar site. The development would therefore comply with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. It would also accord with the SPD and LP Policy ME2 which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development within 5km of European and internationally protected heathlands provide mitigation in accordance with the SPD.

By reason of the separation distance to No’s 9 and [address], and subject to a condition to obscure glaze and restrict the opening of the proposed dormer window to the south elevation, the proposal would not result in a harmful loss of privacy to the occupiers of No’s 9 and [address].

[name] acknowledge that the loss of trees and planting to the site frontage would open up views of the site from the other properties in [address], by reason of the distances to these properties and some retained planting, a suitable verdant outlook would be retained that would not be unusual in a residential context, nor out of character with the remainder of [address]. Furthermore, the relationships would not be harmful to the living conditions of other occupiers of the cul-de-sac by virtue of the angles between windows, distances involved and presence of mutual overlooking from the road to the front of properties.

I have limited substantive evidence before me that the proposal would result in pressure to fell further trees on the site, that an access to one additional dwelling would harm highway safety, that the proposal would result in harm to protected species or a loss of valuable foraging/wildlife habitat, harmfully increase air pollution or result in additional noise from the residents or traffic using [address]. Furthermore, my attention has not been drawn to any LP policies that prevent the development of garden areas in principle, and I note that any discrepancies between plans were addressed at the planning application stage. It is noteworthy that the Council came to similar conclusions with regard to the above matters.

The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Consequently, by virtue of footnote 8, Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework, is engaged. This states 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 Framework taken as a whole.

There is an urgent need for housing when considering the shortfall in housing supply and the proposal would provide construction benefits and associated jobs with occupiers supporting local services and facilities through increased spend. It would also add to the supply of self-build dwellings. As such, the delivery of a dwelling would contribute towards the area’s housing supply and provide other benefits, and its small scale means it would likely be built out relatively quickly. These benefits weigh in favour of the proposal.

Weighing against the proposal is the harm to the character and appearance of the SCA. However, I have identified above that the proposal would only cause limited harm to the character and appearance of the wider SCA due to its location and immediate setting. In light of this and taking into account the objective to promote the effective use of land and to significantly boost the supply of housing and the Council’s housing land supply position, I find that in this instance, the identified adverse impacts of the development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the identified benefits of the proposal.

Consequently, while the proposal would be in conflict with the development plan as a whole, there are material considerations, including the Framework, which would outweigh that conflict.

I have had regard to the suggested conditions provided by the Council. I have considered these against the advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. I have amended some of the conditions in the interests of precision, brevity and clarity.

In addition to the standard time condition, it is necessary for a condition to confirm the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

Conditions are necessary to ensure the submission and approval of levels, details of materials, and hard and soft boundary treatments in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area.

A condition is necessary to ensure the submission and approval of tree protection measures during construction in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area.

Conditions are necessary to ensure the provision of the turning and parking areas and to ensure that the parking spaces are available for parking in the interests of highway safety.

Conditions are necessary to ensure that details of surface water drainage, soakaway and services details are submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and thereafter provided in the interests of preventing pollution, flood risk and to protected retained trees on the site.

A condition is necessary to ensure that the new tree planting is provided and retained in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area.

A condition is necessary to ensure that the identified ecological mitigation and enhancement measures are provided in the interests of nature conservation.

Conditions are necessary to ensure that the dwelling is not occupied until the first-floor windows in the northern and southern elevations are obscure glazed and fixed closed up to 1.7m with roof lights installed at a cill height of 1.7m. These are necessary in order to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos:  1232/PLAN/05 3 The Location/Block Plan  1232/PLAN/04 11 AMENDED - Site Plan  1232/PLAN/03 3 Garage and [name] and [name]  1232/PLAN/02 3 [name] and [name]  1232/PLAN/01 2 [name]

Prior to commencement of the development approved details of the finished floor levels of the buildings hereby approved shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such levels shall be relative to an ordnance datum or such other fixed feature as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to commencement of works (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) a pre-commencement site meeting between the Council’s Tree Officer, [name] or Site Manager shall take place to inspect the protection for the affected protected trees. The protection of the trees shall be in accordance with the Tree Protection Plan prepared by Richard Nicholson Arboricultural Planning Consultant - Ref: RNapc/684/TPP/1A, dated 04/04/2025. The tree protection measures shall be installed in accordance with BS5837:2012 and it shall be positioned as shown on the Tree Protection Plan. This is to be installed before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development. The protection shall be retained until the development is complete and no ground levels shall be altered or excavations made without the written consent of the planning authority. This condition shall not be discharged until an arboricultural supervision and monitoring statement, the contents of which are to be confirmed at the pre-commencement meeting, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of development.

Prior to development above damp-proof course level, details (including colour photographs) of all external facing materials for the walls and roofs, and finishes shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall proceed in accordance with such materials as have been agreed.

Prior to development above damp-proof course level, details of all proposed means of enclosure, boundary walls and fences to the site, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in full accordance with the approved details.

Prior to development above damp-proof course level, details of all existing and proposed means of soft boundary treatments to the site, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in full accordance with the approved details. Any trees, hedges, or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the turning/manoeuvring and parking shown on [name] 1232/PLAN/04 Rev:11 must have been constructed. Thereafter, these areas, must be permanently maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

The proposed garage and car port shown on [name] 1232/PLAN/04 Rev:11 hereby approved once constructed shall be maintained and available for the purpose of parking motor vehicles. The car port shall not be converted to a use other than as a garage for the purpose of parking a motor vehicle by the provision of doors and/or walled enclosure.

Notwithstanding details already submitted within the Arboricultural Impact Assessment, [name] by Richard Nicholson Arboricultural Planning Consultant - Ref: RNapc/684/AIA/1, dated 16/04/2024, a plan showing the location of soakaways and services is to be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works. Where the location conflicts with the notional RPA, details and specification for the installation should be included and agreed at a pre-commencement meeting. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

A new tree is to be planted to the following specification, in the location detailed in Tree Protection Plan, Ref: RNapc/684/TPP/1A, dated 04/04/2025, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Authority: No. of trees required: 1 Species: English oak (Quercus robur) Minimum height: Standard, 2 – 3 metres height, 8 – 10cm Specifications: Container grown nursery stock. Planting date: Replacement tree(s) must be planted during the first planting season (October-March) immediately following completion of the development. Should the replacement tree be removed, die or become severely damaged or seriously diseased, all within 5 years of planting, it shall be replaced by a tree of a similar size and species to that originally planted. Modifications to the requirements of this condition must be agreed in writing with the Tree Team.

The development hereby approved shall not be first brought into use unless and until the mitigation and enhancement measures as detailed in the Ecological Assessment, by ABR Ecology Ltd, dated 31st January 2025, have been completed in full. Thereafter the mitigation and enhancement measures shall be permanently maintained and retained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Prior to commencement of development details of the surface water drainage works (including green field run off rates for all events up to the 1 in 100 years + 45% climate change) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved drainage scheme shall be completed before occupation of the development. The works should have regard to the guidance set out in the current DEFRA national standards [name] (SuDS).

Prior to first occupation or use of the development, the first floor windows on the northern and southern elevations shall be obscure glazed to a minimum Industry standard privacy level 3 and fixed closed up to a height of 1.7 metres above the floor level of the room(s) served, with any opening parts more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the windows are installed; and these windows shall be retained as such thereafter.

Prior to first occupation or use of the development, the roof lights shall be installed with a cill height of 1.7 metres above the finished floor level of the rooms served and these windows shall be retained as such thereafter. END OF SCHEDULE