Appeal 6004717

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal scheme relates to an outline proposal. The application form identifies appearance, layout and scale to be considered at this stage, with access and landscaping reserved for future consideration. I have considered the appeal accordingly. Plans have been submitted which indicate how landscaping could be addressed on the site. I have taken these plans into account on an indicative basis only.

The description of development was altered by the council to include reference to the nature of the application. The original description on the application form is clear and adequate as set out in the banner heading above.

The main issues are:  the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and  the suitability of the location for residential development having regard to local and national policy.

The appeal site comprises garden land (including former agricultural land currently comprising a wildflower meadow) to the side of the detached property of Ayresfield, situated on [address], a no-through road to the north of the village of Burghclere. The site is flanked by two residential dwellings, the host property, Ayresfield to the north and [address] to the south. An additional dwelling, [address], has recently been constructed to the rear of [address]. These properties sit in spacious plots on an outlying rural lane with agricultural fields to the front and rear. The wider area is distinctly rural in nature and benefits from extensive countryside views. The village itself is small, predominantly residential, with few facilities.

The Burghclere Neighbourhood Plan 2011 – 2029 (modified 2023) (the Neighbourhood Plan) describes [address] (Character Area E) as providing a countryside connection and clear settlement edge with a well-established hedgerow network providing boundaries, including to pastoral fields. [address] itself is an unmarked single width carriageway, highly rural in nature and with a street scene dominated by robust hedgerows incorporating hedgerow trees. Residential development largely comprises individual detached bungalows and two storey properties within spacious plots, set back from the road. As the lane extends away from the village, the plots become more dispersed and enable greater experience of the open countryside.

Notwithstanding the position of the appeal site outside of the settlement boundary, the pattern of development and local characteristics clearly graduate from the rural village context into the open countryside. Ayresfield is the last property on that side of the lane. The proposed development would sub-divide the existing plot to create a new residential property in its own curtilage thereby infilling green space, increasing density, and consolidating built form in this location.

The open nature of the site is currently glimpsed through the hedgerow boundary, some of which would need to be removed to accommodate the access and associated visibility splays. I’m mindful that, subject to conditions, the arboricultural value of the site could be preserved. However, whilst landscaping is a reserved matter, submitted details indicate that a number of trees and groups of shrubs would need to be removed in the front part of the site. Access is also a reserved matter and in the absence of detailed arrangements, I cannot be certain that the indicative landscaping plan could be achieved nor to what degree it would be suitable for future access requirements.

Suggested planting to the middle and rear of the property would be of benefit in terms of biodiversity and would offer a greater degree of screening in views from the southwest. However, it would not mitigate the effects of the proposal as seen from [address]. Furthermore, any new planting would be unlikely to mature into robust screening for some time and, in any event, cannot be relied upon in perpetuity to hide development that would otherwise be harmful.

The proposed dwelling would have three floors of habitable accommodation including the roof space, resulting in a primary ridge height in excess of, albeit only marginally, the dwellings to either side. It would also have a gable projection at the maximum height extending forward of the established building line and therefore in closer proximity to the highway. Although it would occupy only a small proportion of the overall site area, the width of the new dwelling would substantially fill the road frontage. Accordingly, alongside the need to remove established hedging to enable access, the dwelling would be visually prominent from the highway. This would intensify the built form of this section of [address], resulting in a localised but significantly detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area. The use of brickwork, clay tiles and hung tiles, alongside natural surface finishes, whilst appropriate to the locality, would not address the arising harm.

As such, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Dean Local Plan 2011 – 2029 (the Local Plan) which require proposals to be sympathetic to the local context, character and visual quality of the area in order to contribute towards local distinctiveness and be visually attractive.

It would also be contrary to Policies B1 and B3 of the Neighbourhood Plan which seek to protect the countryside and rural character of the village, restricting the subdivision of residential plots subject to a number of design and quality criteria.

Further to this, it would not comply with design principles set out in the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018), the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document (2018) nor Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (NPPF) which seek high quality design and site treatment in the context of local character and distinctiveness.

The appeal site lies beyond the village boundary of Burghclere as defined by both the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan. While not isolated, for the purposes of planning policy, it is located in the countryside. Burghclere provides opportunities for formal and informal recreation, community activity plus educational facilities. However, there are no local shops or healthcare facilities and no current public transport services. The route for pedestrians to access the village facilities extends along [address] and [address] which both involve stretches of 30mph road with no pavements or lighting. It is expected therefore that occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be highly reliant on car-based travel to access local facilities and wholly reliant on car-based travel to access necessary facilities further afield.

Policies SS1 and SS6 of 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. Policy B1 of the Neighbourhood Plan consolidates this approach, seeking to maintain the existing open nature of the countryside and resist the encroachment of development into rural areas. Taken together, the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan form the development plan for the area.

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

The Neighbourhood Plan allocates land for 15 dwellings in Burghclere to be delivered over the plan period. This is in excess of the 10 dwellings which were identified in the Local Plan as necessary to meet local need and on top of 6 qualifying dwellings that have already been delivered. In addition, the type of housing need is established as two- and three-bedroom properties with a noted imbalance of larger (four and five bedroom) houses being constructed. Regarding criterion e) of Policy SS6, the evidence does not therefore indicate that the proposed development of a five bedroomed dwelling would meet a locally agreed need.

For these reasons, I conclude that the location of the appeal site is not suitable for residential development, being contrary to Policies SD1, SS1 and SS6 of the Local Plan and Policy B1 of the Neighbourhood Plan which together focus on securing sustainable development by way of a spatial strategy focussed on settlement boundaries and specific criteria for residential development within the countryside.

I have been directed to the approval and subsequent construction of [address], to the rear of [address]. The appellant asserts that this demonstrates that development in this location can be sustainable, policy-compliant, and capable of preserving local character. I do not have details of the council’s conclusions in relation to the location of the development, nor the planning balance that was undertaken, and I’m therefore unable to draw direct comparisons with this scheme. Moreover, it is clear in the evidence that [address] occupies a very different position in relation to [address] to that now proposed, and I understand that the proposal was found to have an acceptable landscape impact, which is not the case with the proposal before me.

As such, while I have had regard to the presence of [address] in considering the impact of the proposed development, each case must be assessed on its own merits, and the recently constructed dwelling does not provide a clear justification for allowing this appeal.

That the council has found no harm, subject to conditions and reserved matters, in respect of matters including highway safety, parking, neighbour amenity, trees, flooding, and waste are all neutral considerations that do not weigh for or against the proposal.

There is no dispute between the parties that the council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In light of a significant shortfall of housing in the borough, even one dwelling would make an important contribution towards meeting its housing needs.

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 an air source heat pump, photovoltaic panels and use locally sourced and low-embodied-carbon materials to minimise environmental impact and reduce carbon emissions, in line with NPPF ambitions towards a low-carbon future. The biodiversity value of the site would also be enhanced by the landscaping scheme. I will carry these matters forward into my planning balance.

As noted above, the parties are in agreement that the council is unable to demonstrate a 5-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.

I have found conflict with the development plan in respect of its spatial strategy for housing set out by Policies SD1, SS1, SS6 of the Local Plan, and Policy B1 of the Neighbourhood Plan. There would also be conflict with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Local Plan, and Policies B1 and B3 of the Neighbourhood Plan in respect of the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

Whilst the council’s housing land supply position indicates its spatial strategy 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.

Moreover, the development plan policies relating to local character and distinctiveness are generally consistent with the NPPF in terms of its aims regarding achieving well-designed places that are sympathetic to local character. As such, I afford significant weight to the conflict of the proposal with these policies.

Turning to the benefits of the scheme, even as a single dwelling the proposal 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 Burghclere 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 and biodiversity enhancements, the benefits associated with the single dwelling would be small.

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.

The Burghclere Neighbourhood Plan was originally made in May 2021 but has been through a process of formal modification in 2023. Land is allocated for a minimum of 15 dwellings to comprise a mix of open market and affordable homes with an emphasis on two and three bed homes which exceeds the local need set out within the Local Plan.

Accordingly, while there is a very great need for more housing, taking into account the harms identified, the status of the Neighbourhood Plan, and having particular regard to the NPPF’s key policies for directing development to sustainable locations and securing well-designed places, 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 proposed development 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.