Appeal 6005895

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the integrity of the Strensall Common Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

[name] and SSSI is a nationally and internationally important ecological resource, designated for its extensive areas of lowland heath and associated flora and fauna. As a Special Area of Conservation, it is a European site for the purposes of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). Its integrity depends on the protection of the designated land itself and the influence of surrounding areas. The supporting text to Policy GI2 of the City of York Local Plan 2025 (Local Plan) recognises that designated sites can be affected by changes in their surroundings, including increased recreational pressure, disturbance and other urban edge effects.

The appeal site lies approximately 250 metres from the boundary of the [name] and therefore falls within the defined 400 metre exclusion zone defined by Policy GI2a of the Local Plan. That policy states that permission will not be granted for development resulting in a net increase in residential units within this zone.

The exclusion zone is informed by the Council’s Habitats Regulations Assessment evidence base which identified that residential development within 400 metres has the potential to give rise to adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC, either alone or in combination with other development, and that mitigation would not be capable of avoiding such effects at that proximity. This reflects the particular sensitivity of the site to increased recreational pressure and associated disturbance arising from additional residential occupation nearby.

The appellant relies on the submitted Ecological Impact Assessment and Shadow Habitat Regulations Assessment, which conclude that a single dwelling would not give rise to a likely significant effect. However, these documents do not demonstrate that the recently adopted Local Plan policy or its underlying evidence base is unsound. Policy GI2a and its supporting evidence base were examined through the Local Plan examination process and found to be justified and effective in addressing impacts on the SAC. The appellant’s submissions seek to apply a case-specific judgement in circumstances where the development plan has already addressed the matter at a strategic level. In doing so, they do not justify a departure from the precautionary approach that underpins the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), nor the conclusions reached in the adopted development plan.

Paragraph 195 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) makes clear that where a development is likely to have a significant effect on a habitats site, it should only be permitted if it can be ascertained, following appropriate assessment, that the integrity of the site would not be adversely affected. In this case, the adopted development plan establishes that such certainty cannot be achieved for residential development within the exclusion zone. As the proposal would result in a net increase in residential units within the exclusion zone, adverse effects on the integrity of the site cannot be ruled out.

The appellant refers to an approval at [address] to suggest inconsistency in the Council’s approach. However, that decision pre-dates the adoption of the Local Plan and thus attracts limited weight in the determination of this appeal. In any event, previous decisions do not override the clear provisions of the adopted development plan and are not binding in the determination of this appeal.

It is also argued that Policy GI2a is disproportionate and intended primarily for larger developments. However, the policy applies to any net increase in residential units within the exclusion zone and is based on evidence which explicitly anticipates windfall development. It is therefore being applied as intended.

Reference is made to a fallback position based on permitted development rights, including extensions or an annex that could give rise to additional occupants. I have had regard to Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (2017), which confirms that a fallback may be a material consideration where there is a real prospect of it being implemented. In this case, there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that such development would be carried out. Moreover, the suggested fallback would not be directly comparable to the appeal proposal in terms of its nature, scale or planning consequences, and any increase in recreational pressure would be uncertain. The fallback therefore attracts very limited weight and does not alter my conclusions on the main issue.

For these reasons, adverse effects on the integrity of the [name] and SSSI cannot be ruled out. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies GI2 and GI2a of the Local Plan, Policy DH1 of the Strensall with Towthorpe Neighbourhood Plan (2023), and paragraphs 193 and 195 of the Framework.

The proposal would make a very modest contribution to local housing supply. Even if paragraph 11(d) of the Framework was engaged having regard to the [name] results referred to by the appellant, paragraph 11(d)(i) and footnote 7 confirms that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where policies relating to habitats provide a strong reason for refusal. In this case, the proposal conflicts with the Framework’s requirements for the protection of habitats sites, which provides a strong reason for refusal that outweighs the limited benefit of a single market dwelling.

I have also had regard to the submitted sustainability statement, which identifies measures aimed at reducing energy consumption, improving building efficiency and managing water use. These are positive features of the proposal and weigh in its favour. However, they do not outweigh the conflict with the development plan or the statutory protection afforded to the SAC and SSSI.

I have noted the concerns raised in respect of trees, access, character and drainage. However, as the appeal is being dismissed for the reasons set out above, it is not necessary for me to reach findings on these matters.

For the reasons given, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.