TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED)

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT)

ORDER 2015 (AS AMENDED)

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (APPEALS) (WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2009 (AS AMENDED)

PLANNING APPEAL BY MR & MRS MEIKLEJOHN

Against the Refusal of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council to Grant Planning Permission

FOR

Erection of a Detached Dwelling with Associated Access and Landscaping

AT

White Cottage, Newtown, Newbury, Hampshire, RG20 9AP

GROUNDS OF APPEAL STATEMENT by Mr M Williams DipTP MRTPI

on Behalf of the Appellants

MARCH 2019

Brimble, Lea & Partners

Ema

- 2 -

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 My name is Matt Williams and I am a Partner of Brimble, Lea & Partners. I

hold a Post-Graduate Diploma in Town & Country Planning and am a

Chartered Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

1.2 I have been practicing as a Planner since 1999 with a significant amount of

experience gained in the public sector where I have operated as a case officer

at different levels, before serving as Head of Planning for four years

immediately prior to joining Brimble, Lea & Partners in 2015. As a case

officer, I dealt with a significant number of different proposals and, as Head of

Planning, I was responsible for the strategic and operational management of

the Council’s planning service and dealt with major, controversial and

complex planning applications.

1.3 I joined Brimble, Lea & Partners as a Planning Consultant in October 2015

and became a Partner of the Practice in May 2017. Since October 2015, I

have been advising clients, submitting planning applications and lodging

appeals for a range of major and minor development schemes. I am widely

experienced in all aspects of development management, planning policy and

the enforcement of planning control, and I have an in-depth knowledge of

planning legislation, policy and procedure.

1.4 The evidence which I present in this Statement for the Appeal is true and is

given in accordance with the guidance of my professional institution, and I

confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions. I

have visited the appeal site and have a good understanding of the local area.

2.0 APPEAL SITE AND PROPOSAL

Appeal Site

2.1 This appeal relates to an area of garden within the curtilage of White Cottage,

immediately adjacent to the C.45 road on the edge of Newtown. The appeal

site is relatively level and measures approximately 0.06 hectares. The site is

bounded by Jasmine Cottage to the south, the Appellants’ property White

Cottage to the east, an area of open land associated with Newtown Court

- 3 -

Farm to the north and open countryside to the west. A location plan is

provided with the appeal submission and photographs of the appeal site are

provided in Appendix 1 of this Statement.

Appeal Proposal

2.2 The appeal proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of a

detached dwelling.

2.3 The proposed dwelling is predominantly single storey with an element of first

floor accommodation to provide a 3-bedroom dwelling. Externally, the

proposed dwelling will have vertical timber boarding and through coloured

rendered walls with powder coated aluminium windows and doors,

underneath mono-pitched slate roofing. Solar panels will be installed on the

south elevation to match the slate roof.

2.4 The proposed dwelling will be served by an existing vehicular access to White

Cottage and a new driveway will be formed off this access to serve the

existing and proposed dwellings.

3.0 THE DECISION OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY

3.1 This Appeal relates to an application for full planning permission that was

refused by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, being the Local

Planning Authority (LPA), under powers delegated to officers on 20 December

2018. The decision notice issued by the LPA and the Case Officer Report,

which formed the basis of the decision, is provided in Appendix 2 of this

Statement. For convenience, the LPA’s reasons for refusing planning

permission were as follows:

1. The application has failed to demonstrate that it meets the criteria to be

considered as an exception to the general policy of restraint of housing in

the countryside. There is no justification within Development Plan Policy,

or any other material consideration that establishes the principle of

development, or is considered to be of sufficient weight for bringing

development forward on this site. The proposal is not considered to

- 4 -

represent a sustainable development and is contrary to the National

Planning Policy Framework 2018 and Policies SS1 and SS6 of the

Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 - 2029.

2. The proposed design of the dwelling by virtue of its, scale, bulk, massing,

fenestration patterns, materials and roof design, would appear out of

keeping with the character of the area. The design would not have due

regard to the sites sense of place, distinctiveness or setting. Therefore in

this regard, the proposal does not represent a high quality development

and is contrary to Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane

Local Plan 2011-2029, Sections 8 and 9 of the Design and Sustainability

SPD 2018 and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework

2018.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

Development Plan

4.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and

Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

require Local Planning Authorities to determine applications in accordance

with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 The Development Plan consists of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough

Council Local Plan 2011-2029 that was adopted on the 26th May 2016. The

following Development Plan Policies are considered to be relevant to this

Application:-

Policy SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development);

Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing);

Policy SS6 (New Housing in the Countryside);

Policy CN9 (Transport);

Policy EM1 (Landscape);

Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation);

Policy EM7 (Managing Flood Risk);

- 5 -

Policy EM9 (Sustainable Water Use);

Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development);

Policy EM11 (The Historic Environment).

4.3 Other Material Planning Considerations

Chapters 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 of the National Planning

Policy Framework (February 2019);

Planning Practice Guidance;

Basingstoke and Deane Supplementary Planning Documents (Design

and Sustainability, Parking Standards, Landscape and Biodiversity, and

Planning Obligations for Infrastructure).

5.0 PLANNING MERITS OF THE APPEAL PROPOSAL

Main Issues

5.1 Based on the LPA’s reasons for refusing planning permission, the main issues

with this appeal are:

Whether the proposed dwelling would be on previously developed land

and therefore supported by Development Plan Policy SS6 as a matter

of principle; and

The effect of the proposed development upon the character of the

area;

5.2 The LPA did not object in relation to other material planning considerations

and it is therefore common ground between the Appellants and LPA that the

appeal proposal complies with development plan policies in respect of the

historic environment, the amenity of local residents and the safety of highway

users.

Principle of a New Dwelling on the Appeal Site

5.3 The appeal site is located outside any defined Settlement Policy Boundaries

(SPB) in the adopted Local Plan. Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New

Housing) sets out how new housing will be provided and states that sites

- 6 -

outside defined SPB will be considered to lie in the countryside. The appeal

site is outside any SPB and is therefore treated as being in the countryside.

5.4 Notwithstanding, Policy SS6 (New Housing in the Countryside) states that

development proposals for new housing outside of SPB will only be permitted

within certain categories identified as (a) – (g), as set out below.

“Policy SS6 – New Housing in the Countryside Development proposals for new housing outside of Settlement Policy Boundaries will only be permitted where they are: a) On ‘previously developed land’, provided that: i) They do not result in an isolated form of development; and ii) The site is not of high environmental value; and iii) The proposed use and scale of development is appropriate to the site’s context; or b) For a rural exception site for affordable housing; or c) For the re-use of a redundant or disused permanent building provided that the

proposal: iv) Does not require substantial rebuilding, extension or alteration; and v) Does not result in the requirement for another building to fulfil the function of the

building being converted; and vi) Leads to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or d) For a replacement dwelling that is not temporary in nature, or an extension to an

existing dwelling provided that: vii) The size of the proposal would be appropriate to the plot; and viii) It would not be significantly visually intrusive in the landscape; or e) Small scale8 residential proposals of a scale and type that meet a locally agreed need

provided that: ix) It is well related to the existing settlement and would not result in an isolated

form of development; and x) The development will respect the qualities of the local landscape and be

sympathetic to its character and visual quality; and xi) The development will respect and relate to the character, form and appearance

of surrounding development, and respect the amenities of the residents of neighbouring properties; or

f) For a new dwelling linked to an existing and viable agricultural, forestry, horse

breeding and training, livery or equivalent rural business, where it can be shown that:

xii) There is an essential need for the occupant to be on site at any time during any 24 hour period; and

xiii) No alternative suitable accommodation is available in the locality; and xiv) The rural business linked to the proposed new building must have been viable

for the previous three years; or g) Allocated for development in a Neighbourhood Plan which has been ‘made’ by

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.

- 7 -

5.5 The Parish Council and some local residents claim that the proposal fails to

comply with Policy SS6 on the basis that there is no locally agreed need for

the proposed dwelling. This, however, is a misinterpretation of Policy SS6

because each category of development (i.e. (a) – (g)) ends with the word or

and it is therefore unnecessary for any new housing outside SPB to satisfy all

of the criteria in Policy SS6 (a) – (g).

5.6 The requirement to demonstrate need and parish support is only applicable

for proposals under Policy SS6 (e) where new housing seeks to meet a locally

agreed need, and it is understandable that the LPA would expect an Applicant to

substantiated such a need from within the local community. As an example to

confirm the Appellants’ interpretation of Policy SS6, category (d) supports a

replacement dwelling or an extension to an existing dwelling, subject to

criteria (vii and viii), but there is no need for such a proposal to demonstrate

compliance with (f) (xii) that there is an essential need for the occupant to be

on site at any time during any 24 hour period.

5.7 This appeal proposal has been advanced on the basis that it satisfies Policy

SS6 (a) which states that housing will be permitted outside a SPB:

a) On ‘previously developed land’, provided that:

i) They do not result in an isolated form of development; and

ii) The site is not of high environmental value; and

iii) The proposed use and scale of development is appropriate to the site’s

context; or

Informal Guidance

5.8 Following the LPA’s refusal to grant planning permission for the appeal

proposal, they have published informal guidance titled “New Homes in the

Countryside on Previously Developed Land – January 2019” which provides

advice on the interpretation of Policy SS6 (a). A copy of this guidance is

provided in Appendix 3 of this Statement.

5.9 The guidance has not been the subject of any consultation and does not

constitute a Supplementary Planning Document prepared in accordance with

- 8 -

the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning)

(England) Regulations 2012 (as amended). As such, the informal nature of

this guidance is of limited weight in the decision-making process.

Status of the Appeal Site

5.10 The LPA does not consider that the appeal proposal satisfies the

requirements of Policy SS6 (a) as they have questioned whether the site is

within the curtilage of White Cottage but, more significantly, believe that the

appeal site is within a built-up area and does therefore not constitute

previously developed land where Policy SS6 (a) supports new housing.

5.11 The appeal site has always been regarded by the Appellants as an important

part of their garden which they have cultivated and manicured as part of their

enjoyment of White Cottage for over 34 years. The site is inherently

residential in character with lawn, fruit trees, bird cage and the Appellants’

only shed which is used to store normal domestic items such as bicycles,

gardening equipment, tools…etc.

5.12 During the application process, there was extensive correspondence with the

LPA Case Officer (Phillip Richards) which is included with the appeal as part

of the essential supporting documents. The only concern raised by the Case

Officer about the proposal throughout the process was that the appeal site

was, in his opinion, in a built-up area.

5.13 The Case Officer never questioned whether the site was part of White

Cottage’s garden. Indeed, in an email from the Case Officer on 12 December

2018 regarding his consideration of the application, he stated that the

proposed dwelling would be in a built-up area because “…..the garden area

cannot be considered previously developed land”.

5.14 In the LPA Case Officer Report, it states that “…the land on which the

proposed dwelling would be sited does not benefit from planning permission

to be used for residential purposes…”.

- 9 -

5.15 The Report goes on to suggest that “…a lawful development certificate would

be the best way to regularise the situation…” but then states that “…it is

apparent from the evidence and information available that the whole of the

proposed site has not been continuously used for residential purposes for a

period of 10 years…”. The Report therefore confirms that the LPA considers

the site to be part of White Cottage’s garden but were unable to establish

whether this use was lawful during the application process.

5.16 The application site surrounds the house and has an intimate association with

it. When objectively assessed, the application site is part-and-parcel of White

Cottage as a whole planning unit and includes the only vehicular access to

the site with a driveway and parking. The site has a clearly physical and

functional relationship with White Cottage and therefore forms part of its

curtilage, having regard to the judgment involving Sumption v London

Borough of Greenwich and Rokos [2007] EWHC 20776. The Appellants

spend a considerable amount of time in this part of the garden, as evidenced

by how well it is looked after, and any allegations to the contrary are

unsubstantiated.

5.17 In further support of the application site being part of the garden and curtilage

of White Cottage, the Parish Council’s objection raised concern about the

proposal setting a precedent “for other gardens” being developed and 7 of the

11 objections have specifically referred to the application site as being

garden. The LPA’s Biodiversity Officer also referred to the site as a garden

and it has been noted earlier that the Case Officer referred to it as a garden.

5.18 In terms of lawfulness, Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act

states that if any person wishes to ascertain whether an existing use of land is

lawful, they may make an application to the local planning authority specifying

the land and describing the use.

5.19 The Appellants are entirely content that the land has been used as a garden

with White Cottage for a period in excess of 10 years and therefore do not

need or wish to ascertain lawfulness from the LPA. The Appellants would

have no qualms about making Statutory Declarations to confirm their use of

- 10 -

the land as a garden for more than 10 years and they could get local people

who have an intimate knowledge of the Appellants and the site to verify that it

has been used as a garden for more than 10 years. However, it has been

established from experience elsewhere that the LPA require photographs of

recreational activities over a 10-year period to prove that a site has been used

as a garden and the Appellants have not, in their 30+ years of living at White

Cottage, contemplated the need to take photographs of each other using their

garden to one day ‘prove’ that the use is lawful.

5.20 Despite the LPA Case Officer Report questioning the lawful use of the site, it

has been confirmed by the LPA prior to this appeal being lodged that they

have not pursued an alleged breach of planning control following the refusal

of permission. Ultimately, establishing lawfulness is not a matter for the

appointed Inspector to decide through this Section 78 appeal but the LPA’s

decision not to pursue the allegation demonstrates that they either do not

really doubt the lawful use of the site as a garden or do not have any evidence

to prove otherwise.

Whether the Appeal Site is Within a Built-Up Area

5.21 Given that the appeal site is within the curtilage of White Cottage, it is then

necessary to consider whether it constitutes previously developed land,

having regard to the definition in the NPPF Glossary. This includes land

which is within the curtilage of developed land but specifically excludes land in

built-up areas such as residential gardens.

5.22 There is no definition in the Development Plan or national policy as to what

constitutes a built-up area and it therefore necessary to apply an ordinary

meaning, taking into account why the Government decided to exclude

gardens in built-up areas from the definition of previously developed land.

5.23 Paragraph 10 in the LPA’s informal guidance in respect of Policy SS6 (a)

states that whether gardens are in a built-up area will be a matter of planning

judgement taking into account factors such as the number of dwellings,

density and cohesion of properties.

- 11 -

5.24 The LPA has only that the appeal site is in a built-up area because it is in

Newtown which is a settlement. Newtown is a settlement but it does not

follow that the site is in a built-up area as the guidance states that regard

should be given to a site’s actual context in terms of density and cohesion of

properties. Reference in the LPA’s guidance to a site’s relationship with a

settlement is in fact a consideration when determining if a development is

isolated and not if it is a built-up area. If the LPA considered that all

settlements in the Borough constituted built-up areas, their guidance would

have said so.

5.25 The LPA’s adopted Local Plan includes a definition of a Settlement Policy

Boundary which is “A boundary surrounding a settlement which separates the

main built-up area from the open countryside”. The appeal site is outside

SPB and is therefore, by the LPA’s own definition, not within a built-up area.

Reference to ‘main’ is because there will always be built development on the

periphery of a settlement with a SPB which does not form part of the ‘main’

built-up area.

5.26 The High Court judgment involving Dartford Borough Council -v- Secretary of

State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWHC 635 (Admin) is

relevant as it stated that a matter of common ground between parties was that

“…the appeal site is not part of the built-up area but rather forms part of the

countryside and therefore subject to countryside policies …”. The appeal site,

being outside the SPB, is similarly part of the countryside and subject to

countryside policies (i.e. SS6).

5.27 In terms of the Government’s reasoning for excluding gardens in built-up

areas, the Judge in the Dartford High Court judgement expressly accepted the

Claimant’s submission that “…the objectively ascertained intention by the

exclusion of private residential gardens from the definition of previously

developed land was to address concerns about “garden grabbing” in

suburban or urban areas, where green space is more limited than

elsewhere…” The appeal site is not in an urban area or a suburb of such an

area.

- 12 -

5.28 The subsequent Court of Appeal judgement involving the Dartford case [2017]

EWCA Civ 141 is also relevant as the Deputy Judge held that “land in built-up

areas” cannot mean land not in built-up areas, so residential gardens outside

built-up areas are previously developed land.

5.29 The Appellants’ case is further supported by the LPA itself. When the LPA

recently granted planning permission for a new dwelling in a garden outside

the SPB in December 2018 (18/03209/FUL), it was stated in the Case Officer

Report that “…in terms of gardens in countryside locations, these are not in

“built-up areas…”.

5.30 The appeal site is clearly in a rural location where the LPA’s countryside

policies apply and this confirms that the appeal site is not within a built-up

area.

5.31 Even if it is considered that settlements in the countryside can be regarded as

built-up areas, as the LPA allege, then a view still needs to be taken as to

whether the appeal site itself is within a built-up area taking into account its

immediate context.

5.32 The LPA’s informal guidance confirms that whether a site is in a built-up area

will be a planning judgement taking into account the number of dwellings,

density and cohesion of properties. The appeal site is only bounded to the

south and east by dwellings in a low density environment on the periphery of

Newtown and there is no built development to the north and west of the site.

As such, the appeal site is not within a built-up area as a matter of fact.

Conclusion – Principle of a Dwelling on the Appeal Site

5.33 The appeal site is outside any defined SPB. However, the appeal site

involves previously developed land and the LPA accepts that the site is

neither isolated nor of high environmental value. As such, Policy SS6

supports a new dwelling on the appeal site as a matter of principle.

- 13 -

Effect of the Appeal Proposal upon the Character of the Area

5.34 The LPA refused planning permission on the basis that the design of the

proposed dwelling, by virtue of its scale, bulk, massing, fenestration patterns,

materials and roof design, would appear out-of-keeping with the character of

the area and therefore contrary to Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Local Plan,

their Design and Sustainability SPD and the NPPF.

5.35 Policy EM1 seeks to ensure that development proposals respect, enhance

and not be detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape.

The LPA accepts that the proposal will not impact upon the wider landscape

in accordance with Policy EM1 and their objection in the context of Policy

EM1 is therefore the impact of the proposed development upon its immediate

surroundings.

5.36 Policy EM10 in the adopted Local Plan seeks to deliver high quality

development and sets out criteria where development proposals will be

permitted. The Design and Sustainability SPD then provides detailed

guidance to support the achievement of high quality sustainable development

in the Borough.

5.37 The Planning Statement submitted with the application to the LPA, which is

provided with the appeal submission, set out the following design principles

and concepts that have been applied to the proposed development in the

context of local and national policies:

To achieve a predominantly single storey dwelling that will suit the

Applicants in retirement;

To avoid a bungalow that would suburbanise the rural character of this

area;

To avoid a traditional cottage that would look contrived and out-of-

keeping because of the need to position upper floor windows that

prevents adjacent properties being overlooked;

- 14 -

To present a contemporary form of architecture that respects existing

development in the site’s context and uses traditional, locally distinctive

materials;

To design a dwelling that minimises energy consumption through

passive solar design and cooling to reduce the need for energy

services, using resources more efficiently through increased levels of

insulation and efficient appliances, and using solar panels to generate

renewable energy;

To ensure that White Cottage and the proposed dwelling both have a

driveway with enough space for three vehicles to park and turn within

the site so they can enter and leave the highway in a forward gear.

5.38 In response to the LPA’s specific concerns about scale, bulk and massing, the

proposed dwelling is a predominantly single storey dwelling with an element

of first floor accommodation. The ground floor measures 125 square metres

and the first floor accommodation measures 60 square metres, providing a

total of 185 square metres (measured externally). The highest part of the

roof measures 6.5 metres and the eaves height is 4 metres.

5.39 According to approved scale plans available on the LPA’s website, the total

floorspace of Jasmine Cottage immediately south of the appeal site is

approximately 214 square metres, comprising 132 square metres on the

ground floor and 82 squares at first floor. The ridge height of Jasmine

Cottage is approximately 6.7 metres and the eaves height is about 4.5 metres

(source: LPA planning permission BDB-52244).

5.40 Similarly, the total floorspace of White Cottage immediately east of the appeal

site is approximately 257 square metres, comprising 135 square metres on

the ground floor and 122 square metres on the first floor. The ridge height of

White Cottage is approximately 6.4 metres and the eaves height is about 4

metres (source: LPA planning permission BDB-77680).

5.41 As such, from an objective assessment, the scale of the proposed dwelling is

less than the two dwellings immediately adjacent to the appeal site, whether

measured by floorspace or height, and it will have less bulk and mass (i.e. first

- 15 -

floor space). In design terms, the L-shaped form of the proposed dwelling,

together with mono-pitched roofs of varying heights, breaks up the scale of

the proposed development and the elevation drawings demonstrate that the

dwelling will be no higher than Jasmine Cottage and White Cottage. As such,

the scale, bulk and massing of the proposed dwelling is not out-of-keeping

with the character of the area.

5.43 With regards to external materials, timber cladding is an inherently traditional

material and the LPA Case Officer Report confirms that render is a locally

distinctive material. Render and timber cladding provide an attractive and

complimentary mix and the materials are therefore considered to be

appropriate for the site’s context and not out-of-keeping.

5.44 The proposed mono-pitched roofs take a different form to other roofs in the

site’s context although the varied roof form helps to reduce the overall scale of

the proposed dwelling. The use of slate, which is a locally distinctive roofing

material, provides a contemporary but complimentary style which is visually

attractive and sympathetic to the surrounding built environment. The

fenestration pattern is integral to the contemporary style.

5.45 A particularly objective of the design has been to ensure that the orientation,

internal layout and physical construction of the proposed dwelling minimises

energy consumption to conserve resources in accordance with Policy EM10,

and this has influenced the appearance of the dwelling.

5.46 The LPA’s Design and Sustainability SPD states that it does not attempt to

impose architectural styles or particular tastes, nor does it seek to stifle

innovation, originality or initiative. Rather it provides a clear framework to

support traditional and contemporary design solutions which are high quality

and respond positively to local distinctiveness.

5.47 The design of the proposed dwelling satisfies the clear expectations of Policy

EM10 and the LPA’s SPD, and paragraph 130 in the NPPF states that design

should therefore be not used by the LPA as a valid reason to object to

- 16 -

development. The LPA are not claiming that the design is poor but object

because it is different to existing dwellings.

5.48 The contemporary style of the proposed dwelling has inevitably attracted

opposition from some residents who would rather development look the same

as existing development. Other residents have, however, complimented the

design. The LPA Case Officer Report recognises that there is a varied

character of development in Newtown and there is no Conservation Area to

capture a particular area of the settlement which has architectural interest.

The lack of any dominant character of development therefore provides an

opportunity to introduce modern architecture.

5.49 Whilst design can be subjective, there are objective considerations in terms of

how development relates to a particular context and it is contended that the

design of the proposed dwelling is sympathetic to the surrounding built and

natural environment. Whilst the LPA Case Officer objected to the design, it is

noteworthy that the LPA’s Landscape Team provided a consultation response

and in the context of Policies EM1 and EM10, stated that “There are no

concerns regarding the appearance of the dwelling.”

6.0 CONCLUSION

6.1 The appeal site forms part of the garden and curtilage of White Cottage and is

not located in a built-up area. The site is neither isolated nor of any

environmental value and Policy SS6 (a) therefore supports a new dwelling on

the site as a matter of principle.

6.2 The design of the proposed development takes a contemporary form but in a

way that is sensitive to its context and visually attractive without affecting the

wider landscape in accordance with Policies EM1 and EM10 in the Local

Plan.

6.4 The proposed development therefore accords with the Development Plan and

the appointed Inspector is respectfully requested to allow this appeal.

Appendix 1 – Photographs of the Appeal Site(White Cottage, Newtown, Newbury, RG20 9AP)

Page 1 of 2

Appendix 1 – Photographs of the Appeal Site(White Cottage, Newtown, Newbury, RG20 9AP)

Page 2 of 2

Chief Executive Melbourne Barrett MBA MRICS

Executive Director of Borough Services Rebecca Emmett BSc (Hons), AIEMA

REF:18/03068/FUL

Mr Matt Williams Brimble Lea & Partners

NOTICE OF REFUSAL

Town & Country Planning Act 1990 Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 In pursuance of its powers under the above mentioned Act, the Council as Local Planning Authority hereby REFUSES planning permission for the: Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling with associated access and landscaping Location White Cottage Newtown Newbury Hampshire RG20 9AP Applicant: Mr & Mrs Meiklejohn in accordance with your application, plans and particulars which were received on 17th October 2018 for the following reasons: 1. The application has failed to demonstrate that it meets the criteria to be considered as an

exception to the general policy of restraint of housing in the countryside. There is no justification within Development Plan Policy, or any other material consideration that establishes the principle of development, or is considered to be of sufficient weight for bringing development forward on this site. The proposal is not considered to represent a sustainable development and is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and Policies SS1 and SS6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 - 2029.

2. The proposed design of the dwelling by virtue of its, scale, bulk, massing, fenestration

patterns, materials and roof design, would appear out of keeping with the character of the area. The design would not have due regard to the sites sense of place, distinctiveness or setting. Therefore in this regard, the proposal does not represent a high quality development and is contrary to Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, Sections 8 and 9 of the Design and Sustainability SPD 2018 and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

2 of 3

Notes to Applicant 1. In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in

dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and creative manner:-

Seeking further information following receipt of the application;

Seeking amendments to the proposed development following receipt of the application;

Considering the imposition of conditions

In this instance:

the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit;

In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

The officer’s report can be viewed on the council’s website www.basingstoke.gov.uk.

Planning and Development Manager Date: 20 December 2018 It is important that you read the notes overleaf

3 of 3

NOTIFICATION - APPEALS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE

18/03068/FUL If you are aggrieved by the decision of your local planning authority to refuse permission for the proposed development or to grant it subject to conditions, then you can appeal to the Secretary of State under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If you want to appeal against the local planning authority’s decision then you must do so within 6 months of the date of this notice. However, if (i) this is a decision on a planning application relating to the same or substantially the same land and development and is already the subject of an enforcement notice, and you want to appeal against your local planning authority’s decision on your application, then you must do so within 28 days of the date of this notice; or, (ii) an enforcement notice is subsequently served relating to the same or substantially the same land and development as in your application and if you want to appeal against the local planning authority’s decision on your application, then you must do so within:

28 days of the date of service of the enforcement notice, or within 6 months of the date of this notice, whichever period expires earlier; or, (iii) this is a decision to refuse planning permission for a minor commercial application you must do so within 12 weeks of the date of this notice. Appeals can be made online at: https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate. If you are unable to access the online appeal form, please contact the Planning Inspectorate to obtain a paper copy of the appeal form on tel: 0303 444 5000. The Secretary of State can allow a longer period for giving notice of an appeal, but he will not normally be prepared to use this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in giving notice of appeal. The Secretary of State need not consider an appeal if it seems to him that the local planning authority could not have granted planning permission for the proposed development or could not have granted it without the conditions they imposed, having regard to the statutory requirements, to the provisions of any development order and to any directions given under a development order. In practice, the Secretary of State does not refuse to consider appeals solely because the local planning authority based their decision on a direction given by him. Purchase Notices If either the local planning authority or the Secretary of State/National Assembly for Wales*

refuses permission to develop land or grants it subject to conditions, the owner may claim that he can neither put the land to a reasonably beneficial use in its existing state nor render the land capable of a reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted.

In these circumstances, the owner may serve a purchase notice on the Council (District Council, London Borough Council or Common Council of the City of London or county or county borough in Wales) in whose area the land is situated. This notice will require the Council to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Application 18/03068/FUL

Details of Application: Full Planning Application Erection of a detached dwelling with associated access and

landscaping Date Registered 26 October 2018 (Subject to three year

condition)

Location: Address: White Cottage Newtown Newbury Hampshire RG20 9AP Ward: Burghclere, Highclere And St Mary Bourne Parish: NEWTOWN CP OS: 447710 163559

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Meiklejohn

Case Officer: Phillip Richards 01256 845314

RECOMMENDATION: It is RECOMMENDED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal

1. The application has failed to demonstrate that it meets the criteria to be considered as an exception to the general policy of restraint of housing in the countryside. There is no justification within Development Plan Policy, or any other material consideration that establishes the principle of development, or is considered to be of sufficient weight for bringing development forward on this site. The proposal is not considered to represent a sustainable development and is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and Policies SS1 and SS6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 - 2029.

2. The proposed design of the dwelling by virtue of its, scale, bulk, massing, fenestration

patterns, materials and roof design, would appear out of keeping with the character of the area. The design would not have due regard to the sites sense of place, distinctiveness or setting. Therefore in this regard, the proposal does not represent a high quality development and is contrary to Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, Sections 8 and 9 of the Design and Sustainability SPD 2018 and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

Planning Policy The application site is located outside of any Settlement Policy Boundary and is therefore situated within a countryside location. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018) Section 4 (Decision-making) Section 5 (Delivering a sufficient supply of homes) Section 8 (Promoting Healthy and Safe Communities) Section 9 (Promoting Sustainable Transport) Section 12 (Achieving well-designed places) Section 15 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment)

Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 - 2029 Policy SD1 (Presumption on Favour of Sustainable Development) Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing) Policy SS5 (Neighbourhood Planning) Policy SS6 (New Housing in the Countryside) Policy CN3 (Housing Mix for Market Housing) Policy CN9 (Transport) Policy EM1 (Landscape) Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation) Policy EM9 (Sustainable Water Use) Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) Policy EM11 (The Historic Environment) Policy EM12 (Pollution) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Design and Sustainability SPD Parking Standards SPD. Landscape and Biodiversity SPD. Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD. Other Material Documents National Planning Policy Guidance (2015) S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Planning Guidance Note (July 2005, updated April 2015). Description of Site The application site refers to a parcel of land associated with White Cottage which lies adjacent to the highway that runs through the village of Newtown. The site is currently used for the growing of fruits and vegetables and is enclosed along the western boundary by post and rail fencing. The land appears visually separate from the more formal areas associated with White Cottage by a hedgerow and entrance gate along the eastern boundary of the application site. The access to White Cottage and the neighbouring property bounds the site to the north, and an additional hedgerow enclose the site to the south. Proposal The application seeks permission for the erection of a detached three bedroom property. The proposed dwelling would appear as an ‘L’ shaped property of contemporary design and would measure 13.9 metres in length, 12.3 metres in width and 6.5 metres in height with a footprint of approximately 110sqm. The materials of the proposal are stated as render and timber cladding for the elevations with a slate roof and powder coated aluminium windows and doors. Consultations Newtown Parish Council – “Newtown Parish Council (PC) has carefully considered the planning application, BDBC reference 18/03068/FUL, for a new build in the grounds of White Cottage. This application was made following a change in Central Government planning policy which indicates that “outside a built-up area the curtilage of a dwelling may indeed be regarded as brownfield.” In the subject application the proposed position of the site may not

be a part of the curtilage as it was more recently added as a part of the property. Our concerns are mainly prompted by the change in brownfield classification and the possible effects that it might have for the whole parish. Were this application to be approved, it would set a precedent within the community for the building development of private gardens. We believe that there is a conflict between any such development and the BDBC planning guidance contained in Policy SS6 (e) – New Housing in the Countryside. The policy relates to small scale residential proposals of a scale and type that meet a locally agreed need. Paragraph 4.77 states that any “local need would be agreed in consultation with the parish/town council and therefore it is suggested that the scope of any survey work is agreed with the Local Planning Authority and the parish/town council at the outset. Although parish/town councils will routinely be consulted on such planning applications, it is recommended that the applicant obtains the views of the parish or town council in writing in relation to the findings of that survey work prior to the submission of the planning application.” The PC was unaware of this proposal until the planning application had been submitted and our views were not requested beforehand. Whilst respecting the wishes of the owner of White Cottage to make this development, we also note that in the paragraph headed “Overall Limits of the Exception”, the question “Would the scale and type of development meet a locally agreed need?” is asked. The paragraph then states “The applicant should provide evidence to demonstrate that their proposal meets a specific and clearly-identified unmet housing need in the local area in terms of number, size type and tenure”. We are unaware of any such demonstration. In addition, the same guidance states that “Nor would an individual’s personal need for housing amount to a ‘locally agreed need’.” To the best of our knowledge this application is related solely to an individual’s personal need. The guidance in SS6 also states “Proposals must objectively demonstrate a need existing at a local level. Therefore proposals should be supported by a comprehensive assessment of requirements in the local area. This should demonstrate a particular local need for the scale, size and type of homes proposed within the Parish or that particular village/settlement. It will usually be appropriate to assess need at Parish level.” The PC did not make any such assessment as we were not consulted before the planning application was submitted, but we do not believe that there is any identifiable need for such an assessment. Finally, from examination of the projected appearance of the proposed property, we do not accept that its style conforms to the SS6 guidance offered in paragraph e) xi) “The development will respect and relate to the character, form and appearance of surrounding development” as it is essentially a modern design and would contrast unfavourably with surrounding properties. We therefore feel unable to support this application.” Environmental Health Officer - No objection subject to conditions. Tree Officer - No objection subject to conditions Biodiversity Officer - No objection. Landscape Officer – Acceptable in principle following minor amendments. Public Observations: Eleven letters of objection have been received and are summarised as follows:

This is not a good example of ‘brownfield’ land being re-used

This land is not part of the curtilage of White Cottage

The proposed dwelling is completely out of keeping with the surrounding area and will

have a significant impact upon the visual amenity

Approving this application would set a precedent for others

Contrary to Policy SS6 and EM10 of the Local Plan.

Impact upon privacy of neighbouring properties

Adversely impact property values of neighbouring properties

Cycling from the site to local town is dangerous and the addition of a dwelling to Well Street would make this worse

Encroaching into the countryside

Would increase the burden on local infrastructure

The proposal does not relate to the local character and distinctiveness of the area

Access to the site is dangerous due to the narrowness of Well Street

Lack of footpaths in the area

Loss of outlook

Dwelling is functionally isolated from significant facilities

The dwelling would destroy the character of the rural settlement of Newtown which has existing for 800 years

The land on which the dwelling is situated is not garden land and is situated within a built up area, in line with the Dartford case the area of land is not Previously Developed Land.

Three letters of support have been received and are summarised as follows:

- The new dwelling would be sympathetically designed - The proposal would allow local residents to remain within the area - The proposal would not be offensive or out of place and the modern design would be

appropriate - The site has good access and sightlines - Would deliver housing in an appropriate area - The site is an ideal and obvious plot - The dwelling would not affect neighbouring properties - Newtown has suffered from a policy of no development and new development is

needed within the area. Relevant Planning History BDB/77680 Erection of a two storey rear extension to

include balcony /rear access stairs to first

floor

GTD 15.04.2013

BDB/73870 Erection of a replacement rear conservatory GTD 31.03.2011

BDB/53142 Erection of a two storey side extension GTD 04.07.2002

BDB/43879 Erection of a single storey porch

GTD 21.09.1998

Assessment Principle of development Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must have regard to Section 36 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the development plan for the area is the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. At a national level, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) constitutes guidance which the Local Planning Authority (LPA) must have regard to. The

NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making, but is a material consideration in any subsequent determination.

- Local Plan The site is located outside any Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) and is within part of the borough which is designated as countryside as per Policy SS1 (Scale and distribution of new housing) of the Local Plan. Policy SS1 sets out a spatial strategy for the Local Authority to meet its full housing need over the Plan period. The strategy is principally based upon the development of allocated greenfield sites and the redevelopment of land in the towns and villages. Development in the countryside is generally restricted. The site is located outside of any Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB). It is therefore within the part of the borough which is designated as countryside as per Policy SS1 (Scale and distribution of new housing). The Local Plan is explicit in its aims as stated in paragraph 4.70: 'The aim of the Local Plan is to direct development to within the identified Settlement Policy Boundaries and specific site allocations. Within the countryside it is the 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 countryside is therefore subject to a more restrictive policy'. Of particular relevance to this application is Policy SS6 due to the sites location within designated countryside. Policy SS6 outlines the exceptional circumstances where it is appropriate to allow new housing development in the countryside. Policy SS6 states that development in the countryside will only be permitted if the site is (a) on previously developed land; (b) is part of a rural exception scheme; (c) is for the re-use of an existing building; (d) involves the replacement of an existing dwelling; (e) is small scale to meet a locally agreed need; (f) is required to support an existing rural business; or (g) is allocated by a Neighbourhood Plan. The two criterion relating to this proposal, and addressed by the applicant in the submission, are criterion (a) and (e). In order to consider whether criterion (a) is relevant, it is necessary to consider whether the land is previously developed land. The NPPF glossary defines previously developed land as the following: “Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill, where provision for restoration has been made through development management procedures; land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape.” Supporting information to the planning application considers that the proposal accords with Policy SS6 criteria a) whereby the siting forms part of the garden to White Cottage and therefore, in the view of the applicant, constitutes ‘previously developed land’ (PDL). It has arisen however through the process of this application that the land on which the proposed dwelling would be sited does not benefit from planning permission to be used for residential purposes. The land has no evidence of permanent structures or activity which would suggest the land forms part of a garden, there is a distinctive separation between the immediate

curtilage and garden of White Cottage and the area in which the proposed dwelling is sited. This land appears to be used for the growing of fruit and vegetables. No additional information has been submitted in support of this application relating to the use of this parcel of land. A lawful development certificate would be the best way to regularise this situation submitted with sufficient information to demonstrate the lands usage. Although no formal decision on the lawful use of this land will be made as part of this application, it is apparent from the evidence and information available that the whole of the proposed site has not been continuously used for residential purposes for a period of 10 years. Third party representations support this view. The extent of the curtilage of White Cottage is pertinent in light of the definition of PDL provided within the NPPF. This definition refers to ‘Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure’. The definition does however provide exceptions whereby such developed land is not deemed to be PDL, which includes ‘land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments’. The exclusion of residential gardens in built up areas from the definition of PDL was reaffirmed within the case of Dartford BC v SSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 141 ('the Dartford case') whereby the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court decision that the NPPF definition specifically refers to land outside built up areas. In having regard to the development plan and the Dartford Case, the NPPF does not define what constitutes a ‘built up area’ whereby it can be considered that the NPPF is concerned with the actual physical characteristics of an area, as opposed to a policy designation on a plan, such as a Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB). The Local Plan however does provide definitions of both a ‘settlement’ and a ‘Settlement Policy Boundary’ to distinguish such areas from the open countryside. This has regard to the number of dwellings, density and cohesion of the properties as well as the relationship to local facilities and services. From these definitions, it can reasonably be concluded that settlements, with or without SPBs, can constitute built up areas. The fact the site is outside of the Settlement Policy Boundary does not itself indicate that the location is not built up. Newtown whilst it does not have a Settlement Policy Boundary is considered to be a 'settlement' as define by the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 which states 'A settlement typically consists of a village, comprised of more than a group of houses, or farmstead, including at least one service or facility, such as a village hall, public house or school.' Newtown benefits from a public house, village hall and two places of worship and comprises more than a group of houses, whilst it is acknowledged that the dwellings are formed in to separate clusters along Well Street, Newtown is considered to be a settlement based upon the Local Plan definition. The site therefore is situated within a built up area and as the Dartford case has established garden land within build up areas cannot be considered to be previously developed land. Even if it were considered that Newtown did not meet the definition of a ‘settlement’ the area is nonetheless considered to be a built-up area. The proposal does not therefore comply with policy SS6a. The proposal, therefore, must be assessed against criterion (e) of Policy SS6, which states that: e) Small scale (four dwellings or fewer) residential proposals of a scale and type that meet a locally agreed need provided that: ix) It is well related to the existing settlement and would not result in an isolated form of development; and x) The development will respect the qualities of the local landscape and be sympathetic to its character and visual quality; and

xi) The development will respect and relate to the character, form and appearance of surrounding development, and respect the amenities of the residents of neighbouring properties. The tests in criteria Policy SS6 e) are in two parts. The first part e) sets out the overall limits of the exception whilst the second part (criteria ix - xi) then sets out detailed criteria for proposals that are within that exception. Therefore, a proposal that can satisfy the first part of criterion e) will fall within the exception as a matter of principle, but the specific details then need to be considered in terms of the criteria of the second part of the policy. A proposal which does not satisfy the exception will not be policy compliant even if it might otherwise comply with the detailed criteria ix - xi. In terms of the first part e), the application is for one dwelling and therefore meets the test relating to scale (four dwellings or fewer). Proposals must also be of a scale and type that meets a locally agreed need. Applicants will be required to provide evidence to objectively demonstrate that their proposal meets a specific and clearly-identified unmet housing need in the local area in terms of number, size type and tenure. Therefore proposals should be supported by a comprehensive assessment of requirements in the local area. The LPA has published guidance to assist in addressing locally agreed need. This advises that an applicant should demonstrate that their proposal meets a specific and clearly identified unmet need in the local area in terms of number, size, type, and tenure, and refers to the need being with the Parish, village, or settlement. No such information has been submitted. As such, the proposal is not considered to adequately demonstrate a current locally agreed need such to justify permitting residential development outside of a Settlement Policy Boundary. Proposals in the countryside which do not clearly meet the exception criteria within Policy SS6 are considered to be unacceptable in principle.

- NPPF In accepting the conflict with the Local Plan, the NPPF constitutes guidance which the Local Planning Authority (LPA) must have regard to. Under the NPPF there is a need to consider whether the development is sustainable and to consider the social, environmental and economic impacts of the development. In considering new housing in rural areas Paragraph 78 advises that: "To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Paragraph 79 goes on to say that Local Planning Authorities should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances. These instances include, essential rural workers dwellings, securing the optimal viable use of a heritage asset, re-use of redundant or disused building which would enhance its immediate setting, subdivision of an existing dwelling or would have a design that is of exceptional quality. In this instance, the proposals would not fall within any of these categories.

- Sustainable Development Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states that decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The three dimensions to achieving sustainable development are defined in the NPPF as: economic, social and environmental. The economic role of the NPPF requires proposals to contribute to building a strong,

responsive and competitive economy. The social role requires planning to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities and states that it should create a high quality built environment. The environmental role states that the natural built and historic environment should be protected and enhanced and should mitigate and adapt to climate change.

- Economic The proposed development would encourage development and associated economic growth through the actual physical building works. The future occupants would also undoubtedly contribute to the local economy and to the continued viability of local services in surrounding villages. However, as this would apply to an increase in a single dwelling only, any benefit to the local economy would be negligible. The economic role of the development is therefore considered to be limited.

- Social The social aspect of sustainable development would be met through the contribution made to the housing stock. Notwithstanding the contributions that this dwelling would bring, the Council is able to demonstrate that it has a 5 year Housing Land Supply (HLS). The development would make no significant contribution to the Council's housing land supply position, which is being adequately met through development within Settlement Policy Boundaries and on allocated sites. Therefore, although there would be a limited benefit as a result of the social role that this development would bring in terms of the provision of a single dwelling, this can only be afforded very limited weight in light of the Councils ability to demonstrate a robust 5 year HLS.

- Environmental With regard to the environmental role of this development, the development could reasonably be expected to demonstrate a degree of inherent sustainability through compliance with Council supported energy efficiency and Building Regulations standards. However, the whole development itself would not respond to climate change through the lack of opportunity to allows for occupants to walk/cycle to a majority of services, i.e. shops. An assessment of harm on the wider character and environmental consideration of the area will be undertaken later in this report, however this development is not considered to support the overarching sustainability aims of either the Local Plan or NPPF.

- Summary It is therefore not considered that there are any material considerations which would outweigh the principle conflict found within the development plan when read as a whole. The development of a new dwelling in this location therefore remains unacceptable in principle. Impact on the character of the area/ design Policy EM1 states that development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that the proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned and must respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape likely to be affected. Regard must be given to intrinsically dark landscapes, the visual and amenity and scenic quality of the area. Policy EM10 states that proposals will be required to respect the local environment, contribute to the streetscene and be visually attractive. EM10 also seeks high quality development across the borough, based upon a robust design-led process and a clear understanding of the local identity and context of development to create successful, inviting places where people want to live, work and enjoy themselves.

Development within Newtown is populated by clusters of dwellings that are spaced along Well Street which passes through the area. Although comprising of a meaningful number of dwellings, Newtown retains a rural characteristic. The highway is wide enough in places for two way traffic and it is generally bordered by vegetation which forms the front boundaries of the properties which line it. Where views are afforded beyond dwellings, this is predominantly to the countryside which surround the village. Buildings within Newtown vary in character and appearance, red brick with clay tiles is used widely and there are examples of painted brick, render, concrete tile and slate also being used. The application site would occupy a prominent position being set forward of White Cottage upon garden land as stated by the applicant within the application forms and supporting documents. The positioning of the proposed dwelling would not itself be out of keeping with the general building lines within the area, the village has organically expanded over time and the placement of properties as a result is varied. To the north of the application site lies a church and to the south a village hall. There is also a further cluster of dwellings and a public house approximately 360 metres to the north of the application site. The proposed dwelling itself would appear out of keeping with the rural character of the area. The angled modern form and material pallet of the dwelling along with the large relatively blank elevational expanses of timber cladding and render along the southern and northern boundaries make the proposal obvious, prominent and incongruent within the area. Whilst it is acknowledged there is a varied character to the properties within the area, these properties tend to be of more traditional appearance and materials. As a result of the design, the proposed dwelling would fail to integrate successful within the area and harm the rural character of Newtown. The Landscape Officer has raised no objection to the proposed development and has stated that the dwelling would not cause harm to the landscape character of the area. These comments are agreed within insofar as they relate to the landscape harm arising from the proposed dwelling. It is not considered that the proposed dwelling would harm the landscape character of the area as the property would be read in conjunction with the backdrop of other residential dwellings. However, for the reasons outline above the proposed dwelling is considered to cause harm to the character of the area in both design and visual amenity terms. As such, it is not considered that the development would positively contribute to local distinctiveness, sense of place or the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would fail to have regard to the scale, layout and setting of the surrounding area. The design and finish of the dwelling would not provide a visually attractive building in this rural context. Therefore, the development would fail to comply with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Local Plan, paragraph 127 of the NPPF and guidance contained with the Design and Sustainability SPD. Impact on neighbouring amenities Policy EM10 requires developments to provide high levels of amenity for proposed occupants and neighbouring occupiers regarding privacy, amenity space and natural light. The development would be located at a sufficient distance from neighbouring properties as to avoid any negative impacts. This includes overlooking, overbearing and overshadowing. The proposal will introduce both first floor rear and side facing windows within the dwelling, however the side facing windows are to be high level and situated 30 metres from Jasmine Cottage. As such, whilst these windows would face towards the neighbouring property to the south, the windows would not result in overlooking.

There is a potential for overlooking to occur from the first floor rear facing windows of the proposed dwelling towards the neighbouring properties to the east of the site. However, the dwelling is separated from the neighbouring properties by 21 metres which is consistent with the guidance contained within the Design and Sustainability SPD with regards to acceptable distances to avoid overlooking or loss of privacy. Furthermore, due to the topography of the site the application site is situated on lower ground and therefore the first floor windows would not look directly to the first floor windows within the properties to the east. Comments have been received that have stated that the proposed dwelling would lead to a loss of outlook from the neighbouring properties. Whilst this comment is appreciated and it is acknowledged that the proposal would alter views out of neighbouring properties, it is not considered that the proposal would result in a loss of outlook. The proposed dwelling is situated in excess of 20 metres from the neighbouring properties and set upon lower ground which is considered to be sufficient as to not cause harm. With regards to the loss of view this is not a material planning consideration and as such cannot be considered. The proposal would result in an altered relationship with the neighbouring properties, however given the separation distance and modest height of the dwelling the proposed dwelling would not be overbearing. It is considered that the proposed dwelling is situated a sufficient distance from the existing neighbouring properties as to not cause harm. As such, the application would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenities. Biodiversity Policy EM4 establishes that proposals will only be permitted where significant harm to biodiversity can be avoided or adequately mitigated unless there is a demonstrated overriding public need. Given the rural location of the proposed development the Biodiversity Office was consulted. Following a review of the proposed development the Biodiversity Officer raised no objection to the proposed development and states that the site is unlikely to hold any key species or habitat features and as such no potential biodiversity issues. Environmental Health

- Contamination As the proposals involve the introduction of a sensitive end-user (residential) the Environmental Health Officer considers that it is necessary to secure via a planning condition that a contamination survey is undertaken upon the site prior to the commencement of development. This approach is considered to be necessary and appropriate in this instance. The recommendations of the EHO are agreed and subject to compliance with these conditions, it is considered that the proposals would comply with Policy EM12 of the Local Plan. Further details with regards to contamination could have been conditioned should all other matters been found acceptable.

- Noise The location of the new dwellings have neighbouring properties located in close proximity to the site. Given the proximity to the neighbouring property it is considered necessary had all other matters been found acceptable, that the hours of construction and material deliveries be restricted by way of planning condition to ensure there are not any adverse noise implications during the development.

Parking Policy CN9 sets out that development should integrate into existing movement networks, provide safe, suitable and convenient access for all users; provide appropriate parking and servicing provision; and should not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. Policy EM10 requires developments to provide appropriate parking provision (including bicycle storage), in terms of amount, design, layout and location, in accordance with the adopted parking standards. The proposed site would be accessed via the existing access on to Well Street. Given that this is an existing entrance serving vehicles that currently use the existing properties on site, it is not considered that the addition of a dwelling would materially increase its use and as such no issues are raised in this regard. The proposed site plan shows sufficient space for the provision of two parking spaces for the dwelling and space for visitor parking within the site, this accords with the relevant standard for dwellings of this size in rural locations. The submitted site plan shows there are areas for refuse storage and collection points, these are considered acceptable in principle, further details of this provision could have been conditioned should all other matters been found acceptable. Community Infrastructure Requirements The Council's Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD (2018), and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (as amended 2015) are relevant with regard to planning obligations in the context of a development. The CIL regulations in particular now make it unlawful if the obligation sought does not meet the following three tests: (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms (b) directly related to the development, and; (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. The Council is mindful of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) which was updated in May 2016 confirming that contributions for affordable housing and other ‘tariff style’ financial contributions should not be sought from small-scale residential developments of 10 units or less (5 units within designated (e.g. AONB) rural areas) and which have a maximum combined gross (internal) floor space of no more than 1,000m2. The use of the term ‘and’ (as opposed to ‘or’) within the PPG threshold implies that both unit number and floorspace tests have to be met in order to justify seeking an affordable housing or tariff style financial contributions contribution. In this instance, the 10 unit trigger is not met and as such it is not necessary in accordance with ministerial guidance for tariff style contributions to be sought in relation to this development. Given that this application is for a single dwelling with no special circumstances, specific development related contributions are not required. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council has implemented its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the 25th June 2018. The required forms have been submitted for CIL contributions to be calculated if applicable, in this instance the proposal is for the erection of a single dwelling and although CIL liable will not result at this time in any CIL contributions being required to be paid. Water Efficiency Policy EM9 of the Local Plan sets out that development for new homes will need to meet a water efficiency standard of 110 litres or less per person per day, unless clear demonstration is given that this would not be feasible. It is considered appropriate that should all other matters have been found acceptable, this requirement could have been secured by way of condition.

Other matters Several of the objection letters have stated that the proposal if approved would create a precedent for other dwellings to be applied for within the area. Each planning application is assessed against its own merits and therefore the approval of one application does not then set a precedent for others. Furthermore, several of the objections had raised that as a result of the proposed dwelling being approved and subsequently built it would devalue neighbouring properties. The devaluation of property is not a material planning consideration and as such cannot be considered. Informative(s):- 1. In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in

dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and creative manner:-

Seeking further information following receipt of the application;

Seeking amendments to the proposed development following receipt of the application;

Considering the imposition of conditions

In this instance:

The applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit;

In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

Y - CIL checked

Signed: PJR Name: Phillip Richards Case officer Date: 18/12/2018

Y CIL checked Signed: GAC _ Name: Gregg Chapman APM Date: 19/12/2018

Page 1 of 4

New homes in the countryside on previously developed land

(January 2019)

This is an informal guidance note published by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. The purpose of this note is to provide advice on the interpretation of Policy SS6(a) of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029) which permits new homes in the countryside on previously developed land in certain circumstances.

1. Local Plan Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing) sets out a spatial strategy for the Local Authority to meet its full housing need over the Plan period. The strategy is principally based upon the development of allocated greenfield sites and the redevelopment of land in the towns and villages. Development in the countryside is generally restricted.

2. However, Local Plan Policy SS6 recognises that there will be some limited

circumstances where it is appropriate to allow new housing development in the

countryside (outside the Settlement Policy Boundaries, as defined on the Local Plan

Policies Map). The policy therefore allows a limited number of exceptions to be

made to the general policy of restraint on housing in the countryside.

3. This note has been produced by officers to provide informal guidance on how the

requirements of Policy SS6(a) should be interpreted following a number of judgments

from the Court of Appeal. This section therefore seeks to provide:

Clarity on the definition of previously developed land taking into account the

Court of Appeal’s judgment in Dartford BC v SSLG [2017] EWCA Civ 141 (‘the

Dartford case’); and

An update on the council’s interpretation of the term isolated following the Court

of Appeal’s judgment in Braintree District Council v SoS CLG [2018] EWCA Civ

610 (‘the Braintree case’).

4. In accordance with s.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,

planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The council will need to consider whether there are material considerations that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

Page 2 of 4

Local Plan Policy

5. Local Plan Policy SS6(a) supports the principle of new houses in the countryside on

previously developed land. The policy sets out the following requirements:

Previously developed land

What is previously developed land?

6. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2018) provides a definition of

previously developed land (PDL).

Previously developed land: Land which is or was occupied by a permanent

structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not

be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any

associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or was last

occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed

for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill, where provision for

restoration has been made through development management procedures;

land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds

and allotments; and land that was previously developed but where the

remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended

into the landscape. (NPPF, 2018)

7. The glossary definition of PDL in the Local Plan is not exactly the same as national

policy in that it does not expressly incorporate the NPPF exclusion for “land in built-

up areas such as private residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and

allotments.” However, in line with s.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase

Act 2004, which states that applications for planning permission are to be determined

in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate

otherwise, the NPPF (and therefore the definitions within it) is an important material

consideration and will form the basis on which the Local Planning Authority should

determine planning applications.

Page 3 of 4

Are gardens previously developed land?

8. As set out above, the definition of PDL in the NPPF excludes ‘land in built-up areas

such as private residential gardens’. As such, gardens within the built-up areas of the

borough would not be considered to be PDL and therefore the principle of

development would not be supported in principle by Policy SS6a.

9. The Dartford case considered the NPPF definition of PDL and clarified that a garden

outside a built-up area can be considered PDL, as long as it complies with other

elements of the definition of PDL. To apply this principle to Local Plan Policy SS6(a),

it is necessary to understand what constitutes a ‘built-up’ area.

10. In accordance with the NPPF and Local Plan, gardens within a settlement policy

boundary will be regarded as being in a ‘built-up’ area. Whether gardens outside of a

settlement policy boundary are regarded as being in a ‘built-up’ area will be a matter

of planning judgement taking into account factors such as the number of dwellings,

density and cohesion of the properties. It is unlikely that a small group of houses or a

farmstead would be considered ‘built up’.

Isolation

What is an isolated form of development?

11. Policy SS6a does not support new homes on PDL where it would result in an isolated

form of development. The adopted Local Plan includes a definition of ‘isolated’ within

the glossary, however this will need to be considered in light of the interpretation of

the NPPF in the Braintree case. Although the Braintree case was based upon

wording in the NPPF (2012), similar wording is included in the NPPF (2018). NPPF

(2018) para 78-79 states:

’78. To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be

located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive,

especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of

smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a

village nearby.

79. Planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated

homes in the countryside unless one or more of the following circumstances

apply: …’

12. The Braintree case held that isolated for the purposes of the NPPF, ‘isolated’ should

be given its ordinary meaning as ‘far away from other place, buildings and people;

remote’. The judgment therefore concluded that ‘isolated’, in the context of the NPPF,

only means ‘physically separate or remote from a settlement’.

13. The Braintree definition is therefore narrower than the Local Plan definition which

defines ‘isolation’ by both physical separation but also functional isolation in terms of

proximity to services and facilities. The Local Plan definition will therefore need to be

interpreted in line with the Braintree case.

Page 4 of 4

14. However, although inaccessibility to services and facilities is not part of the definition

of isolated for the purposes of para 55 of the NPPF, it still remains a material

consideration as to whether the proposal constituted sustainable development and

may therefore be taken into account as part of the overall planning balance.

15. In terms of what constitutes a settlement, in accordance with the Braintree case, this

should not be limited by the glossary definition in the Local Plan and will include

villages that do not have settlement policy boundaries or access to any facilities. It

will be a matter of fact and planning judgement for the decision maker, as to whether

a group of dwellings can be considered to be a settlement.

16. The determination of whether a site is isolated will be informed by an assessment of

the particular circumstances of the site and the proximity and character of

surrounding development.