Appeal 6006685

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading is different to that provided on the planning application form. It was changed by agreement in correspondence between the Council and the applicants in October 2024.

In the same correspondence with the Council, the applicants confirmed that any plans showing design detail were for illustrative purposes only and I have considered them as such.

The planning application form states that the proposed development would be open market housing. However regarding [name] it is stated on the application form that the [name] would not apply as it would be a self-build development. The appellants in their appeal statement confirm that the development would be for purchase on the open market. Also, there is no mechanism before me that would secure a self-build development. I have therefore considered the development as open market housing.

The appeal is for outline planning permission for one dwelling with all matters reserved. I have determined the appeal on this basis with matters relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale subject to future consideration.

The main issues are: • Whether the biodiversity gain condition as set out at Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021) is capable of being successfully discharged.; and • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the existing site and the area.

[name] (BNG) is a mandatory requirement of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021). Under the statutory framework, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met (the BNG condition). This objective is for development to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat. This increase can be achieved through onsite biodiversity gains, registered offsite biodiversity gains or statutory biodiversity credits.

No objection was raised by the Council’s biodiversity officer, on the basis that the application form stated that the development would be self-build and thereby exempt from the biodiversity gain objective. However, the appellant has not demonstrated that the development should not be subject to the biodiversity gain condition as open market housing is proposed.

The proposal does not contain the minimum information required by Article 7 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. This requires such information as pre-development biodiversity values and a completed metric calculation tool, which are absent from the appeal before me. The statutory framework for BNG involves the discharge of the biodiversity gain condition following the grant of planning permission. The determination of the Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP) under this condition is the mechanism to confirm whether the development meets the biodiversity gain objective and development cannot commence until the BGP is approved.

Since the proposal does not quantify the site’s existing biodiversity value, or the proposed ecological enhancement, it does not demonstrate that at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value, relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat, would be achieved.

For these reasons, the proposal fails to demonstrate the biodiversity gain condition is capable of being successfully discharged and would therefore conflict with the requirements of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The site is located on [site address] within the village of [site address] . On entering the village from the west there are a number of semi-detached dwellings on the left and access to a recent modern residential development to the right.

Continuing towards the B3051, there is [site address] [name] on the left and then dwellings. To the right there is a car park and modern residential development beyond. Dwellings fronting [site address] east of the school are typically set back behind high hedge and tree boundary treatments, there is also significant hedging and trees fronting the other side of the road. The hedging combined with high trees contribute to a street scene with a strong verdant feel with limited views beyond. The limited views are such that the perceived spacing of dwellings from the street varies with viewing location. Consequently, there is no strong sense of spacing or particular rhythm of properties in the street scene. With the exception of the semi-detached houses to the west of the school, plot widths are also not readily perceptible and do not contribute strongly to the character of the area. Residential properties in the area are a mix of semi-detached and detached and include bungalows and two-storey properties.

The site is currently part of the garden of [site address] , which is a semi-detached two-storey house, set back from the road with a high hedge front boundary treatment which contributes to the verdant street scene.

The indicative layout demonstrates that it would be possible to develop a dwelling of comparable footprint size to [site address] and [address]. The plot size of the proposed dwelling and that remaining at [site address] would not look out of place given the variation in dwelling types, plot widths and limited views in the area. The front boundary hedge positively contributes to the character and appearance of the area, and it is important that that development does not significantly harm the hedge. The appellant states that the hedge will be retained and although access is a reserved matter, the Council has confirmed that the location of the existing access to [site address] is acceptable to serve both the existing and proposed dwellings. It has also confirmed the driver visibility splay setback requirement would be 2m back from the kerb edge, which is a point in front of the hedge, thereby not requiring hedge removal. Again, the width of the access would be a matter for consideration at reserved matters stage but there is nothing before me to indicate that a shared access serving two dwellings would need to be significantly wider than an access serving one dwelling. Consequently, I am satisfied that the development would not require significant harm to the front boundary hedge. Further the illustrative plans indicate that the development would be located behind an existing high hedge within the site which would be retained and thereby protect the verdant qualities of the site. For these reasons the development would not harm the character and appearance of the existing site.

Given the mixed character of the street with respect to size, scale. design and style of buildings, limited views and retention of the high boundary hedge, the development would not look out of place in the street scene and would not harm the character and appearance of the wider area.

The Council considers that there is a strict pattern of development to this section of [site address] comprising large, detached properties comfortably set apart from each other with large gardens and that subdivision of the plot into two smaller plots would be out of character with the surrounding area. On the contrary, there is a mixture of semi-detached and detached properties with very significant variation in scale both of properties and plot size. To the west of the site, houses are semi-detached and to the east detached. A modest detached house at this location would sit appropriately within this mix of houses and plot sizes and the proximity to Crossways would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The council contends that the development would represent an overdevelopment of the site, resulting in long narrow plots for [site address] and the proposed development, diminishing the character of the plot and the area and negatively affecting the visual quality of the area. However, the indicative dwelling does not look cramped in the plot and long narrow plots are evident along this built-up section of [site address] . Notwithstanding this, the plot size would not be readily evident in the street scene given it would be located behind an existing hedge within the site, and no changes are proposed to the existing boundary hedge.

Consequently, the site would continue to contribute to the verdant character of the area and being located within a built-up area would have limited impact on the visual amenity of the wider landscape. The density of development would not be dissimilar to that at the nearby properties of [address] and [address]. The parking area to serve the proposed dwelling is considered by the Council to be too large and out of scale with the proposed dwelling but it is an existing parking area so the retention would not have an adverse impact. In any event this is a matter for future consideration.

Overall, for the reasons provided above the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the existing site and the area. It would therefore be compliant with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Dean Local Plan (2016) and Policy HD3 of the [site address] with Headley Neighbourhood Plan (2022) which require development to respect and have due regard to the density, scale, layout, character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would also comply with the National Planning Policy Framework that requires development to be sympathetic to local character and protect valued landscapes. Finally, it would also accord with guidance in the Basingstoke and [name] and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018) to protect distinctive character.

The proposal would provide one new home. This would support the Government’s aim of significantly boosting the supply of homes and improve the current shortfall in the Council’s housing land supply. However, as I have found the proposal to be in conflict with the requirements of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, this does not outweigh the harm identified.

For the above reasons, although I have found that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the site and the area, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would comply with Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.