Appeal 6005307

The appeal is dismissed.

Two plans have been submitted in response to the fifth reason for refusal related to [name] (BNG), comprising a [name] and Existing Habitat Plan. In addition, correspondence from local estate agents, providing commentary on the housing market in and around [site address] has also been submitted. I am satisfied these do not amount to a substantive change to the proposal or from that considered by the Council at the application stage. Furthermore, interested parties, including the main parties, have had an opportunity to comment on this material during the course of the appeal. Accordingly, I find that no party would be prejudiced by its acceptance, and I have therefore taken it into account in reaching my decision.

The main issues are:  the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area,  whether the site would be a suitable location for new housing, with particular regard to the Council’s spatial strategy and the extent to which the site has access to services and facilities by sustainable and active modes of transport,  whether the proposal would provide a suitable housing mix and if it would contribute to providing mixed communities, and  whether the proposal would make adequate provision for [name] (BNG).

The appeal site forms part of an agricultural field, occupying approximately one third of its extent. An established hedgerow defines the boundary with the main road, whilst a modest timber fence encloses the southern edge. To the north, the boundary is marked by a mixture of fencing and mature vegetation. There is no defined boundary treatment along the western side.

The site provides visual relief from the surrounding built form and reinforces the rural, open and spacious qualities of the locality. Thus, I find that the site makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The erection of three dwellings on the site would extend the built form along the western edge of [site address] as it passes through [site address] . The row of three large, detached houses, together with associated detached garage buildings and domestic landscaping and surfacing, would be a prominent feature of this part of [site address] . This would result in an urbanising effect, eroding the open, spacious and rural character and appearance of the area

Accordingly, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy EM1 and Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011–2029 (the Local Plan), which in so far as is relevant, requires development to be sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned, and positively contribute to local distinctiveness and the sense of place.

Policy SS1 of the Local Plan directs new housing to allocated sites, sites within the defined Settlement Policy Boundaries (SPB) and sites allocated through the neighbourhood plans. The appeal site is not in any of these locations and is therefore in the countryside.

Policy SS6 of the Local Plan in summary, says new housing in the countryside will only be permitted where among other things it is (e) small scale, comprising four units or fewer, that are of a scale and type that meet a locally agreed need. The justification text reiterates the strategy for housing delivery and confirms the Plan’s intention to maintain the existing open nature of the borough’s countryside, prevent the coalescence of settlements, and resist the encroachment of development into rural areas.

The Council’s New Homes in the Countryside to Meet a [name] (January 2019) Guidance Note (GN), identifies that proposals should provide evidence to demonstrate that it meets a specific and clearly identified unmet housing need in the local area in terms of number, size, type and tenure. The note further advises that a general need for additional housing in the borough would not in itself satisfy the exception of a ‘locally agreed need’. Nor would an individual’s personal need for housing amount to a ‘locally agreed need’.

There is agreement between the main parties that the proposal does not fall within any of the specified categories of development set out in Local Plan Policy SS6.

[site address] does not contain the range of services and facilities typically associated with sustainable patterns of development. Furthermore, no substantive evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the site benefits from access to convenient or regular public transport provision. Consequently, future occupiers of the proposed dwellings would heavily rely on the private motor car to access day-to-day services and facilities.

Three planning permissions, have been put before me, concerning residential development in close proximity to the appeal site comprising: a 2022 permission1 for the erection of two 3-bedroom dwellings; a 2023 permission2 for the erection of a single 4-bedroom dwellinghouse; and a PIP3 granted in March 2023 for the erection of up to 2 dwellinghouses. [name] have been provided with the relevant [name], I have not been provided with the full application documents for the schemes. As such, I am unable to fully assess the comparability or relevance of these permissions, beyond noting that they relate to residential development in close proximity to the appeal site.

In any event, each of these permissions are distinguishable from the case before me, the schemes which were granted planning permission comprised dwellings with fewer bedrooms and would therefore be likely to give rise to lower levels of occupancy and associated travel demand than the appeal proposal, and the PIP related to a site that had previously benefited from planning permission for residential development, albeit secured under permitted development. Accordingly, whilst the previous decisions are material considerations, the weight I attach to them is limited.

As such, I do not accept they demonstrate a general acceptance of the settlement as a suitable location for residential development. Rather, I find that each decision was made on its own individual planning merits, with the suitability of [site address] for residential development considered in the context of the specific development proposal before the Council at the time.

I have also considered recent planning appeals4 each dealing with residential development outside of SPBs. I have not been provided with the full application documents for the appeal schemes and as such, I am unable to fully assess the comparability or relevance to this appeal. Accordingly, while these decisions are material considerations, the weight I attach to them is limited.

[name] acknowledge that the Framework advises that, in rural areas, planning decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and that sites to meet local needs may need to be located adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, including locations not well served by public transport, and that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, these considerations do not justify directing development to locations with poor accessibility to services and facilities. In this case, the site would be inherently reliant on the private motor vehicle, would be served by routes that are unattractive to pedestrians and cyclists, and would have no practicable access to alternative, more sustainable modes of transport. 1 Planning permission 21/01996/FUL 2 Planning permission 23/01751/FUL 3 Permission-in-principle 22/03265/PIP 4 APP/H1705/W/24/3344656, APP/H1705/W/24/3347575, APP/H1705/W/3352099, APP/H1705/W/24/3357309, APP/H1705/W/25/3363048, APP/H1705/W/25/3368685

Accordingly, the proposal would not therefore be a suitable location for new housing, with particular regard to the Council’s spatial strategy and the extent to which the site has access to services and facilities by sustainable and active modes of transport. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy SS1, Policy SS6, and Policy CN9. Collectively, these policies set out the local strategy for housing delivery, focusing new housing development within settlement boundaries and restricting new housing in the countryside except where they would comply with certain criteria, which the proposal would fail to achieve. It also seeks to minimise the need to travel, promote opportunities for sustainable transport modes, improve accessibility to services and support the transition to a low carbon future.

Local Plan Policy CN3 seeks developments of market housing to incorporate a range of house types and sizes to address local requirements, with the mix being appropriate to the size, location, density and character of the site and surrounding area, and 15% of the proposed dwellings to be accessible and adaptable homes. Moreover, the proposal should provide evidence to justify the mix.

Paragraph 5.29 of the justification text also recognises that for smaller developments it may not be appropriate to meet the requirements of the policy. It indicates that smaller developments would typically be those of 3 or fewer units. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that it would not be appropriate for the site to provide a mix of units.

I have considered the correspondence with local estate agents5 and comments in support of the housing mix. I note it says that local estate agents are “...best placed to advise on matters of market demand / need, with a better and well-informed understanding of current requirements as opposed to often (as in this case) dated evidence in the form of the SHMA”.

However, the correspondence submitted only evidences a demand for the dwelling types and sizes proposed, it does not provide an assessment of the types and sizes of housing required locally. Market demand as expressed in the correspondence reflects purchaser preference and current buying patterns in the local area, this is not evidence of the mix of homes needed in locally.

Accordingly, in the absence of substantive evidence, I conclude the proposal would not provide a suitable housing mix and would not contribute to providing mixed communities, contrary to Policy CN3 of the Local Plan.

Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) introduced a statutory framework for BNG and it applies to all planning applications for non-major development. Under the statutory framework, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the [name] (BGC), which requires that at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value is met. It follows that the proposal is subject to the general BGC, as set out in the Act. 5 Letter 09/10/2025 [name], and Letter 27/03/2026 [name] sales, lettings and management.

Even if the application documentation did not provide the required or sufficient BNG information, updated plans have been submitted with the appeal.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that it would generally be inappropriate for decision makers, when determining a planning application for a development subject to BNG, to refuse an application on the grounds that the BNG objective will not be met. However, the PPG continues that decision makers may need to consider more broadly whether the BNG condition is capable of being successfully discharged, with matters for consideration including the appropriate balance expected between on-site gains, off-site gains and the use of statutory biodiversity credits for the development, taking account of the [name].

I have no substantive or technical evidence before me to conclude that the BNG condition is not capable of being successfully discharged.

Accordingly, I find that the development would make adequate provision for BNG, and as such would be in accordance with the statutory requirements and Policy EM4 of the Local Plan, which in so far as is relevant, directs that development will only be permitted if significant harm to biodiversity can be avoided or, if that is not possible, adequately mitigated.

It is common ground between the main parties that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land (5YHS). The Appellant submits a figure of 2.94 years, which, whilst I am unable to confirm, I use for the purposes of determining this appeal.

In these circumstances, paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), and the associated presumption in favour of sustainable development, is engaged.

Three dwellings would make a small but meaningful contribution to the Council’s housing supply and attracts significant weight. The development would also generate moderate economic benefits, both during the construction phase and through subsequent household expenditure. The proposal would secure BNG, a consideration of limited weight.

However, I have found harm arising from the site’s location and to the character and appearance of the area, these are both disbenefits of substantial weight.

Thus, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme, 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.

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