Appeal 6004984

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused.

The appeal relates to a planning application that was not determined by the Council within the prescribed period. I note that, had the Council issued a decision, it would have refused planning permission. In establishing the main issues, I have had regard to the submissions of both parties.

The Council has made reference to the Draft East Hampshire Local Plan (2021-

(Emerging Plan) which was published for consultation on the 22 January

Paragraphs 48 and 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) state that due weight should be given to such policies according to the stage of preparation of the emerging plan, alongside the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies and the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the Framework.

The evidence indicates that the Emerging Plan has not yet reached adoption stage and hence the policies within it, as material planning considerations, cannot at this stage be afforded full weight in decision making terms. I am therefore required to determine this appeal in accordance with the relevant saved policies of the East Hampshire District Local Plan (2014) (EHDLP) in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

As part of the appeal, the appellant has submitted an amended site plan which shows the addition of hedging behind close board fencing within a small section of the site boundary. The Planning Inspectorate Appeals’ Procedure Guide makes it clear in chapter 16 that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the Council. Whilst mindful of the guidance, I am satisfied that the amended plans show relatively minor changes to the development considered at the planning application stage. I shall accept the amended plans for the purposes of determining this appeal and do not consider that it would prejudice the Council or any interested parties.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether the proposed dwelling would result in satisfactory living conditions for adjoining occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site is located to the rear of [site address] (No 25), a detached dwelling positioned on the corner of Green Lane and [address]. The site comprises a long, narrow garden area which consisted of bare soil at the time of my site visit. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, characterised by detached and semi-detached properties set within spacious, verdant plots.

The proposed development comprises a substantial, single storey dwelling positioned to the rear of No [address] proximity to the boundary with [address]. Owing to the narrow plot size, the building would sit noticeably forward of the established building line along the north side of [address]. The width of the proposed dwelling would significantly exceed that of the adjacent property (No 2) and, combined with its position close to the site’s front boundary, the dwelling would appear excessively large and incongruous within the surrounding street scene. Given the rise in land levels, the building would also appear particularly prominent when approaching [address] from the junction with Green Lane.

I also find that the extensive hard landscaping area required to accommodate a turning head and parking spaces for 5 vehicles would appear excessive and visually discordant within this residential and verdant context. Although the appellant states that the surfacing would be permeable, and a 1m wide soft landscaped strip is located adjacent to the footway outside the site, the significant scale of this area and the resultant parking of up to 5 vehicles would still represent an overly intensive form of development which would appear visually discordant in its context. Furthermore, the proposed [address]-boarded fence boundary would not adequately screen this element of the scheme from the public realm. Whilst hedging is proposed behind some sections of the low boundary fencing to the west of the car parking area, it would not sufficiently soften or mitigate the resultant stark and over-dominant appearance of the development, which occupies a prominent location within the locality.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would be contrary to saved Policy CP29 of the EHDLP which, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that the layout and design of development contributes to local distinctiveness and sense of place, and is appropriate and sympathetic to its setting in terms of its scale, height, massing and density, and its relationship to adjoining buildings, spaces around buildings and landscape features; and requires new development to provide car parking in a way that secures a high quality environment.

The proposed dwelling would be positioned close to residential properties and their garden areas to the side and rear of the development. However, given that the proposed use is residential, together with the retention of substantial and mature boundary landscaping separating the single storey dwelling house from the adjoining properties at [address] (No 27) and [address], I do not consider that the proposed dwelling through its use or siting would give rise to an unacceptable living environment for existing occupiers through increased noise or disturbance.

Furthermore, from my site visit and the evidence provided, the property at No 27 is set a substantial distance from the boundary with the appeal site, which further reduces the potential for noise or disturbance arising from the proposal. Any noise associated with the occupation of the dwelling, including activity within the garden and parking areas, would be comparable to that which could reasonably be expected from the existing residential use of the site.

Accordingly, I therefore conclude that the proposed dwelling would provide satisfactory living conditions for adjoining occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. I further find no conflict with saved Policy CP29 of the EHDLP which relates to design considerations in new development. I also find the proposal to be in accordance with paragraph 135 f) of the Framework which requires development to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The evidence provided by the Council indicates that the appeal site lies within the impact zone of the Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA) and the Chichester and Langstone Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA). The appellant does not dispute that the development would adversely impact upon European protected sites by increasing the discharge of nitrates through foul discharge to sewers. [name] have not been provided with a signed legal agreement or evidence to confirm that a contribution is secure and ringfenced for its intended purpose, I note the appellant’s willingness to secure a contribution to mitigate the harmful impacts. Based on the information before me, some form of mitigation would be required to address the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. However, since I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, it is not necessary to address this matter in any further detail.

The appellant states that the site benefits from permitted development (PD) rights whereby a substantial outbuilding may be constructed in the rear garden1, and that this should be considered a fallback position. Whilst an outline of the building has been shown on the proposed site plan, alongside an approved layout plan in the planning statement for the application submission, full details of the approved scheme have not been provided. In the absence of this information a detailed 1 EHDC-25-0355-LDCP comparison with the appeal proposal cannot be made. Whilst the appellant comments that preparatory works have commenced on site to implement the development, this was not evident at my site visit. I therefore find that there is no compelling evidence that the fallback position is a greater than theoretical possibility, or that if the appeal is dismissed the fallback would be pursued.

Furthermore, even if the building were constructed to the full limit of any PD rights, any built form would, by its nature, remain ancillary or incidental in form and use to the main dwelling as opposed to the proposal before me. It is also unlikely to require the extent of parking proposed. As a consequence, I find the suggested fallback position to have limited weight in the determination of the appeal and my approach in this appeal decision is not inconsistent with the stated case law2.

The appellant refers to inconsistency in decision making and draws my attention to a number of examples of backland development, including sites to the rear of 21, 63, 65 and [address], [address], [address] and [address]. [name] do not have full details of the examples provided, each proposal must be assessed on its own merits and in accordance with current planning policy. From observations at my site visit, whilst the wider area does contain instances of backland development, the examples at 63, 65 and [address], [address], [address] and [address] are all located a considerable distance from the appeal site and do not share its site context. Furthermore, the example cited at [address] does not appear to correspond to a valid address within the Clanfield settlement.

Turning to 1A and [address], located to the rear of [address], although these are chalet style homes, they do not share the same site context as the appeal proposal in relation to siting and their relationship with the established building line to the north of [address]. In addition, the properties are set back considerably from the road and, whilst there is a detached garage close to the front boundary of No 1B, this is well screened by boundary treatment and is of an ancillary, small scale nature. I therefore find that these examples are less prominent in the street scene, and their existence does not alter my conclusions.

[name] acknowledge that the proposal may provide a high quality living environment for future occupants and there is no dispute regarding matters of privacy, outlook or loss of daylight and sunlight for adjoining residents, these considerations do not compensate for the harm that I have found and do not lead me to a different finding overall.

[name] have had regard to the appellant’s reference to communication with the Council, this has not led me to alternative conclusion on the main issues of this appeal.

The Council advises that their residential land supply indicates that the authority is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with a supply figure of 2.9 years. Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework indicates that in such situations, where the requisite land supply does not exist, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and 2 Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council and others [2017] [name] 1314. demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal would make a small contribution towards addressing the housing shortfall and it would do so in a location which is well related to services and facilities. Against these benefits, and the temporary economic benefits arising during construction, I must weigh the harm of the development to the character and appearance of the area. I find the magnitude of harm would be significant in this context.

Consequently, the adverse impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefit of one additional residential unit when assessed against the policies in the Framework. The proposal would be in conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this instance. There are no material considerations of such strength as to justify a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.