Appeal 6005759

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, with particular regard to the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal seeks to develop up to two dwellings on undeveloped land adjacent to Church Green Stables. The spatial strategy set out in Policy SS1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 to 2029 (adopted 2016) (Local Plan) 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone] directs housing developments towards existing settlements and allocated development sites, and it is more restrictive towards housing proposals in the countryside. However, Policy SS6 of the Local Plan does allow for some small-scale residential development in the countryside, provided certain criteria are met. These criteria include (e) where the development is of a scale and type that would meet a locally agreed need.

The appeal site is not located within any defined settlement boundary and, consequently, is within the open countryside. Although the proposal would be of small-scale, there is no evidence before me to indicate that it would meet a locally agreed need. Consequently, the appeal proposal is not a form of development that complies with Policy SS1 and none of the criteria for Policy SS6 apply.

Whilst the site lies within walking distance of a public house and a church, it is located some distance from the nearest settlement that offers a range of services and facilities of the type necessary to meet day-to-day needs. Therefore, future residents of the proposal would likely need to travel to neighbouring settlements to access a wide range of shops, services, possible places of employment and public transport networks on a frequent basis.

I observed during my site visit the unlit roads that are subject to national speed limits with no pedestrian footway or cycle paths within the vicinity of the appeal site. It is therefore unlikely that future occupiers of the proposal would walk or cycle along these roads, particularly during hours of darkness or bad weather conditions. Access to public transport is also very limited. In these circumstances, I consider that the site has poor accessibility to services, facilities, and public transport. Accordingly, future occupiers would be heavily reliant on the use of a private car.

My attention has been drawn to the [address] judgement Braintree District Council v SSCLG & Others [2018] [name] 610. However, that case related primarily to ‘isolated homes in the countryside’, as referred to at paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework). In this regard, I agree with the appellant that the appeal site is positioned near to existing dwellings and is therefore not physically isolated from other properties. However, that does not alter my view that it has poor accessibility to services, facilities, and public transport.

While opportunity to maximise sustainable transport will vary between urban and rural areas, the Framework also sets out that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of sustainable transport objectives, such as to promote walking, cycling and public transport. Consequently, although the occupants of the proposed dwellings would likely support local services in Baughurst and Tadley or settlements elsewhere, they would be reliant on the private motor vehicle to meet most day-to-day and longer-term needs.

Although electric vehicle charging provision could be utilised by future occupants, it would not be possible to control, by way of planning condition, the types of vehicles used by future occupants or visitors to the dwellings. As such, the presence of charging infrastructure would not meaningfully influence travel behaviour. Indeed, it is unlikely to reduce reliance on the private motor vehicle or encourage a shift towards more sustainable modes of transport, such as walking, cycling or public transport.

As such, the proposal would not be a suitable location for residential development having regard to national policy and the development strategy for the area. It would not have adequate proximity or access to services, facilities and opportunities for sustainable transport. Consequently, it would not support the transition to a low carbon future. It would therefore fail to accord with the Council’s spatial strategy for residential development, and the sustainability aims of Policies SS1, SS6, and SD1. It would also conflict with Policy CN9, which seeks to ensure that new development encourages the use of sustainable transport modes. In addition, the proposal would fail to accord with the Framework in respect of achieving sustainable development.

The existing dwellings along [site address] are mostly set back from the road, set within large plots. There are spacious gaps between dwellings, some of which are interspersed with open fields and countryside. [site address] is therefore characterised by a linear form of loose knit and sporadic development reflecting the rural character of the area.

The appeal site consists of a small parcel of undeveloped land adjacent to Church Green Stables. The site is relatively flat and mostly laid to grass with a pond to the north-west of the site. Several mature trees and hedgerow bound the site, and the surrounding area is predominantly rural.

Although the appeal site is adjacent to Church Green Stables, this only encloses one side of the site. [address] is situated further away, on the opposite side of the road. The site is therefore only partially enclosed by existing residential development. It has a relatively open nature which relates more to the open countryside than the existing built form.

The proposed dwellings would be sited on what is currently an open field which, along with the other fields around the site, contribute positively to the character and appearance of the countryside around the settlement. The proposal would have an urbanising effect, extending built development into the open countryside beyond the existing built area. The proposed dwellings, hardstanding surfaces, and garden paraphernalia that would likely be associated with the proposal (such as garden furniture, children’s play equipment, parked cars) would result in a domestic appearance that would diminish the rural qualities of the site. This would erode the contribution that the site makes to the character of the area and would harm the character and appearance of the countryside.

I acknowledge that the layout and design of the proposed development is a matter for the [name]. Nevertheless, the submitted block plan indicates plot sizes that would be considerably narrower than the spacious plot sizes of the existing residential development along [site address] . This would be out of keeping with the established settlement pattern.

Regardless of its scale and massing, the proposal would be visible from the surrounding area, particularly when any deciduous trees and vegetation are not in leaf during the winter months. Consequently, the appeal proposal would fail to integrate effectively with its surroundings or reflect the characteristics of [site address] .

For the reasons given above, the site would not be suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, land use and the amount of development proposed, with particular regard to the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Local Plan. Collectively, these policies amongst other things, seek to ensure development is sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area and positively contribute to local distinctiveness.

My attention has been drawn to a previous approval at [name] House2. However, this previous approval differs from the current appeal proposal as it relates to a single dwelling which was situated within the existing residential garden of [address]. This site was positioned directly opposite Church Green Stables and adjacent to [address], meaning that it was contained on two sides by existing development. I also note that the site had a level of seclusion given the adjoining woodland, ensuring that the site does not have notable visibility to the surrounding landscape character or the approaches along [site address] . Therefore, the appeal proposal is materially different to this previous approval, where the Council found that a scheme could be designed on a site that would not harm the character and appearance of the area. I acknowledge that the Council did come to a different conclusion in terms of accessibility. However, I have determined this appeal on its own individual merits based on the information before me and my own observations of the area.

My attention has also been drawn to several other previous decisions. Relatively little detail has been provided regarding the background to these other schemes, and I do not know what evidence was before the Council at the time of their decisions. Nevertheless, they appear to be positioned next to larger clusters of existing residential development than the proposal before me, with some located closer to services and facilities. Therefore, from the limited evidence before me, they do not appear to be directly comparable, and all applications are judged on their individual merits.

The appeal site is located near to Church Green Farmhouse, which is a [name] listed building. Based on the evidence before me and the observations I made during my site visit, I find that the proposal would have a neutral effect on the significance of the listed building and preserve its setting due to the separation distance from the appeal site. However, this is a neutral effect and does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

Reference has been made to a previous appeal decision3 in Hampshire. However, this appeal decision is not before me. In any event, I have determined this appeal on its own merits.

There is no dispute between the parties that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable sites for housing, and I have no evidence before me to suggest that this position is likely to improve in the short-term. In such circumstances, Paragraph 11d of the Framework requires that 2 Ref: 23/02204/FUL 3 APP/H1705/W/25/3368891. 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 as a whole.

In this instance, the benefits of the proposal include the provision of up to two dwellings. There would also be some economic benefits associated with the scheme during construction phase and subsequent occupation of the dwellings, as well as support to local services and facilities. Despite the shortfall in housing land supply, I only afford limited weight to these benefits given that the proposal is relatively minor in nature.

The proposal would conflict with Policies SS1, SS6, SD1 and CN9 of the Local Plan. These policies are broadly consistent with the Framework’s sustainability principles and protection of the countryside. The proposal would also harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Local Plan. These policies are broadly in accordance with the Framework which seeks to ensure that development contributes to and enhances the natural and local environment, by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

I have concluded that there would be material harm in relation to the suitability of the site’s location. The support for the principle of development within the Framework is countered by the importance it places on the provision of development that encourages the use of sustainable modes of transport. In this instance, the proposed development would not be accessible to a wide range of services and facilities to support day-to-day needs. As such, future occupiers would be largely reliant on the private car to access services and facilities to meet their everyday needs. Furthermore, I have found harm to the character and appearance of the area, to which I attach significant weight.

As a result, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that would arise from the proposal. Consequently, the presumption in favour of development does not apply.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations before me, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh these findings.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.