Appeal 6005115

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above differs from that set out in the decision notice, which describes the proposal as “demolish bungalow and single garage and construct detached dwelling and retain the [address] within the site”. I consider the discrepancy between the two descriptions to be of no material consequence. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the description contained on the decision notice, as it provides greater clarity.

In relation to the second reason for refusal, the appellant has submitted additional ecological information in the form of a letter from Vesper Conservation & Ecology Ltd. The letter provides an assessment of the likelihood of protected species being present on the appeal site (the site) as well as biodiversity mitigation and enhancement measures. The additional material does not amount to a substantial difference or a fundamental change to the scheme that was determined by the Council at the application stage, and given that main and interested parties have had an opportunity to submit comments on the additional material during the course of the appeal, there would be no injustice to any party were I to consider it. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the additional information.

The Council has confirmed that the additional information addresses the second reason for refusal. I have no information before me that would lead me to a different conclusion.

In the appellant’s Statement of Case and in an email dated 19/02/2026, it is indicated that a legal agreement would be submitted during the course of the appeal to secure mitigation measures in relation to the third reason for refusal concerning nutrient neutrality. However, no legal agreement has been provided. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the information before me.

The main issues are: • whether the site would be a suitable location for new housing, with particular regard to the Council’s spatial strategy and access to services and facilities, and • the effect of the proposal on the integrity of protected European sites.

Policy COM2 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan (DPD) January 2016 (the Local Plan), focuses growth within defined settlement boundaries identified in the policy. It says outside these boundaries development will only be permitted where it is considered appropriate in the countryside in accordance with other relevant Local Plan policies, or where there is an essential need for a countryside location.

Policy EL P7 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2024 (the Neighbourhood Plan) similarly seeks to restrict development beyond settlement boundaries unless it can be demonstrated that a countryside location is essential to the proposal.

It is common ground between the main parties that the site lies outside the defined settlement boundary of [site address] , and as such is land within the countryside.

I note the comments that the proposal would amount to a replacement dwelling in the countryside, and as such could be considered appropriate development in accordance with Policy COM12 (Replacement dwellings in the Countryside) of the Local Plan. I have considered the advice letter from the Council dated 27/01/2020, which seems to provide advice in relation to a previous application for a certificate of lawfulness related to applications on the site, not in relation to the proposal that is before me. I further note that the Council did not treat the proposal as a replacement dwelling, the appellant’s Statement of Case does not further any such argument, and a recent appeal decision1 appears to contradict the advice of Council Officers in their advice letter. As such, on the evidence before me I do not consider the proposal to be a replacement dwelling.

The appellant has not advanced any other substantive case that the proposal constitutes a form of development appropriate to a countryside location when assessed against relevant Local Plan policies, nor has it been demonstrated that there is an essential need for the development to be located in the countryside.

The site lies approximately 300m to the north of the settlement of [site address] , which is identified in the Local Plan as a Tier 3 Rural Village. The supporting text to Policy COM2 makes clear that settlements within this category do not possess the range or level of facilities and services, nor the accessibility, of the higher order settlements, namely [name] and [name], and are therefore not considered suitable for accommodating strategic-scale development. Nevertheless, it acknowledges that, given the presence of some facilities and services, either within individual settlements or shared between them, some 1 APP/C1760/X/20/3255897 additional development may be appropriate. However, it goes on to state that development located away from defined settlements is unlikely to satisfy all dimensions of sustainable development, particularly in respect of access to a range of services and facilities.

Access between the site and the nearest settlement of [site address] would be via Downs Road, an unmade track, before joining [address]. The latter is a relatively narrow, metalled highway with limited opportunities for vehicles to pass each other. Neither route provides footways or street lighting, thereby limiting pedestrian connectivity.

No substantive evidence has been provided in relation to access to public transport. From my site visit, I observed no obvious bus infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of the site, which suggests that opportunities for travel by public transport may be limited.

While the route to [site address] is relatively level and could, in principle, facilitate cycling, I acknowledge that this mode of travel would not be suitable or attractive for all users. In addition, the narrow carriageway and constrained nature of the route are likely to deter its use.

Overall, these factors significantly diminish the attractiveness and practicality of using public transport, walking, or cycling as a means of accessing day-to-day services or facilities within [site address] and neighbouring settlements, particularly during hours of darkness, in inclement weather, or for those with mobility impairments, and for parents or guardians with buggies.

[name] recognise that some journeys will inevitably be undertaken by private car, irrespective of distance or the relative attractiveness of public or active modes, national policy nevertheless seeks to ensure that development maximises opportunities for safe and suitable access to day-to-day services by such means. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) acknowledges that the extent to which this can be achieved will vary between urban and rural areas, reflecting differences in the availability of services, facilities and transport choices, and that some degree of reliance on the private car is to be expected in rural locations.

However, in this instance, having regard to the site’s distance from local services and facilities, together with the accessibility limitations identified above, I find that the proposed development would be heavily reliant on the private motor vehicle. As such, I conclude that the site would not be a suitable location for new housing, particularly in terms of access to services and facilities.

In reaching these conclusions I note the comment that the site performs comparably, and in some respects more favourably, than a number of sites / locations within the defined settlement boundary of [site address] in terms of access to local services and facilities. Furthermore, reference is made to potential allocations identified in the emerging Local Plan, which the appellant argues exhibit similar characteristics to the appeal site, particularly in relation to accessibility and overall locational context.

However, in my view these sites / locations identified are more closely related both physically and functionally to the existing range of services and facilities, even where some individual sites may exhibit their own accessibility constraints. By contrast, the appeal site lies outside the settlement boundary and, as set out above, is served by routes that are constrained in terms of width, lack footways and lighting, and offer limited scope for safe and convenient travel by non-car modes, and any future local plan allocations would be subject to examination and comprehensive evidence neither of which are before me.

Overall, I find that the appeal site would not be a suitable location for new housing, with particular regard to the Council’s spatial strategy and access to services and facilities. It would therefore be contrary to Policy COM2 of the Local Plan and Policy ELP7 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan which seek to ensure new development is sustainably located.

Natural England has published guidance which requires proposals for all new development providing overnight accommodation in the borough to demonstrate nutrient neutrality2. The guidance follows evidence that elevated levels of nitrates, arising in part from additional wastewater generated by residential development, is entering the Solent. This is contributing to eutrophication within a number of internationally designated sites, thereby adversely affecting their ecological integrity and conservation interests. The designated sites affected by this proposal are, the Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site; the [name] and Ramsar site; and the Solent and [name] (the [name]).

In accordance with advice from Natural England all relevant development should be supported by a nutrient budget calculation in order to identify the amount of nitrate that would be generated by a proposal. This exercise would demonstrate what if any mitigation were required.

[name] were minded to grant permission, I would need to assess whether the scheme would adversely affect the integrity of the [name], which would include consideration of proposed mitigation measures and whether they would be sufficient to address the harm likely to be caused by the development.

In the absence of a nutrient budget calculation and completed legal agreement or other appropriate mechanism, I cannot be satisfied that any necessary mitigation, management or monitoring measures could be secured and therefore cannot conclude that no adverse effects on the integrity of the [name] would arise. In the absence of such information and adopting the precautionary principle, I conclude that the proposal would have a likely significant effect on the integrity of the [name].

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would be in conflict with Policy E5 and E8 of the Local Plan, which insofar as relevant, require that development which may generate pollution should only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it would not result in adverse impacts on natural environment including [name]. 2 Nutrient neutrality is a means of ensuring that a development plan or project does not add to existing nutrient burdens within catchments, so there is no net increase in nutrients as a result of the plan or project (https://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5031421117988864)

The main parties agree that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year land supply of deliverable housing (5YHLS). The Council confirms that the current supply position is approximately 2.76 years, which represents a significant shortfall.

The appeal site is subject to policies which protect areas of particular importance, namely the [name]. In the absence of the necessary nutrient budget calculation and subsequent mitigation measures to ensure that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of those sites, policies in the Framework provide a strong reason for refusing the proposed development.

However, even if this were not the case, I have identified harm arising from the site’s location. In my judgement, this harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the provision of a single dwelling and the associated economic benefits arising during the construction phase and from subsequent household expenditure.

Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole, and no material considerations, including the Framework, indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it.