Planning Appeal by: Mr Newman Site: Ramblers, Aldermaston Road, Pamber End, RG26 5QN Proposal: Erection of dwelling Appeal Reference: APP/H1705/W/15/3131687 Local Authority Reference: 15/01005/FUL Appeal Statement Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council October 2015 BASINGSTOKE AND DEANE BOROUGH COUNCIL TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 Planning Appeal by: Mr Newman Ramblers, Aldermaston Road, Pamber End, RG26 5QN Erection of dwelling Appeal Reference: APP/H1705/W/15/3131687 Local Authority Reference: 15/01005/FUL ADDITIONAL STATEMENT TO OFFICERS DELEGATED REPORT 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Council advises that the Delegated Officer Report (as previously forwarded) forms the basis of the Council’s Statement, however in addition the Council wish to bring to the Inspector’s attention the matters contained herein. 1.2 An updated position in respect of the Borough’s Housing Land Supply is included at Appendix A. 2.0 Description of Site 2.1 The development site forms part of the southern garden to the existing dwelling Ramblers, which has recently been demolished and is in the process of being replaced with a two storey dwelling (13/00184FUL). The site is located to the west of the A340, towards the north end of Pamber End. To the south of the site lies Wakeford Farm comprising of a number of barns and a dwelling. To the north of Rambers is undeveloped agricultural land which lies between a further two detached dwellings which lie opposite Greenacres nursery. The appeal site itself is level although it is on a slightly lower ground than the road. The access point is located to the north directly leading to Rambers. There are established trees and hedges along the all boundaries of the site. There is a large mobile home located on the site used as temporary accommodation whilst the replacement dwelling is being built. The development site measures 0.19ha. 3.0 Background 3.1 The appeal matter was validated as a planning application on 13th April 2015 and was refused planning permission on 11th June 2015 under delegated powers for the reasons; 1. The proposal is for the erection of a new dwelling within the countryside, in an unsustainable and isolated location, for which there are no exceptional circumstances. As such the proposal would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy D6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 -2011. 2. The proposed new dwelling would result in an increase in the built form of the site, resulting in two large detached dwellings in close proximity to one another and additional movements and activities on the site, which would be detrimental to the rural character and appearance of the locality and would represent inappropriate development of a residential garden. As such the proposal would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), and saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 4.0 Comments on the Appellant Appeal Statement 4.1 As set out at paragraph 1.1 the detailed delegated Officer report forms the basis of the Council’s Statement. However, the following comments are made in response to the appellant’s Appeal Statement. Introduction 4.2 Within paragraph 1.2 of the Appellant’s Statement reference is made to there being a dwelling previously occupying the site, Hatherley Cottage. This evidence comprised of a letter from the applicant’s solicitors confirming that the building was demolished in 1972. This evidence was not substantiated with any title deeds, plans, photographs or statutory declarations, therefore the Council cannot confirm either way whether there was previously another dwelling on the site. However it is not something that needs pursuing as the appellant has rightly not relied upon this to justify the proposal. 4.3 In paragraph 1.4 the appellant refers to ‘a wide range of supermarkets, doctors, dentists and swimming pool’ within Tadley located ‘less than 1.3km to the north of the appeal site.’ This description is considered to be misleading as the site is located 1.3km from the southern point of the Settlement Policy Boundary at Winston Avenue. Sainsburys supermarket is located 3.4km from the Appeal Site; Morlands Surgery (40 New Road) is 2.75km away; Dentists, takeaway, employment (Franklin Avenue) is 3.9km away; Tadley Pool (New Road) is 2.6km away. Therefore the actual distance to these services is much further away than the appellant describes. Relevant Site History 4.4 The appellant’s site history section excludes the full history of the appeal site. This is documented within the Officer’s report submitted under the appeal questionnaire; however the Planning Inspector is requested to ignore the reference to application BDB/22262 for the ‘Use of land for sale of fruit and vegetables’, as this relates to a different site. Application BDB/27796 for the ‘Erection of a dwelling on 0.01 ha’ is relevant to the appeal site and a copy of the Council’s Decision Notice and plan considered is attached at Appendix B. This application was refused on the basis that it would 'represent an undesirable additional dwelling for which there is no over-riding justification in an area of scattered development beyond the main built up area of any settlement.' Response to reasons for refusal Reason for Refusal 1 4.5 Reason for Refusal 1 states that the site lies in an unsustainable and isolated location. The Officer’s report acknowledges that the term isolated has two dimensions: 'Firstly whether the site is physically remote; and secondly whether it has easy access to services and facilities.’ The Grounds of Appeal reference a paragraph within the Council’s Emerging Local Plan regarding the definition of ‘remote.’ Notwithstanding that the Emerging Local Plan is currently at examination and can be given limited weight at this stage, the appellant’s case fails to acknowledge that the term isolated is defined in the same document: ‘In the context of new residential development in the countryside where there is a significant separation between the proposed dwelling and the nearest settlement. Additionally, a dwelling is considered to be isolated if it is not well served by public transport (e.g. within 500 m of a bus stop or train station) or well served by services and facilities (e.g. within 1km of an SPB, which generally contains facilities such as schools, post offices, doctors surgery, etc).’ 4.6 In this instance the Council consider that the Emerging Local Plan submission cannot be given any weight, instead the Planning Inspector is requested to weigh up whether the site is physically remote in terms of accessibility and has easy access to services and facilities, in assessing the proposal against paragraph 55 of the NPPF. 4.7 The Council have reached a balanced opinion when concluding that the site is considered to be isolated and unsustainable. Whilst it is acknowledged that the site is located near a bus stop and outside a public footpath, it is considered that the relative distances from the site (outlined in paragraph 4.3) to day to day facilities such as Sainsbury’s; the doctors and dentist surgery’s, the swimming pool, the primary school, the church, employment and takeaway units, are located much further away than the 1.3km distance stated within the Appellant’s statement. On this basis the Council conclude that the distance to these services would not be easily reached by sustainable mean and ultimately would not discourage the use of a private motor car. The site is therefore considered to be isolated and unsustainable and therefore the proposal to erect a new dwelling within the countryside without any special justification is considered to be unacceptable. 4.8 Paragraph 6.5 of the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal concludes that ‘the proposal is therefore considered to meet with Policy D6 of the Local Plan and the NPPF March 2012.’ The proposal does not comply with Saved Policy D6 of the Adopted Local Plan. 4.9 Saved Policy D6 restricts new homes in the countryside, only permitting new residential development in the countryside where it is a 'one for one replacement of an existing dwelling' (i) or 'results from the conversion of an existing building' (ii). The only other circumstances where it may be acceptable for new homes in the countryside, according to Saved Policy D6, is where it 'involves residential development on sites which comply with Saved Policies D8 or D9' (iii) where they are rural exception sites (e.g. for affordable housing, community facilities etc) or rural brownfield sites. This proposal is for a new-build dwelling rather than a replacement dwelling or conversion of an existing building, and therefore does not comply with criteria (i) and (ii) of Saved Policy D6. With respect to criteria (iii) of Saved Policy D6, the site does not involve the development of a site which would be considered to be a brownfield site under Saved Policy D9 of the Local Plan. 4.10 The Council acknowledges the social, economic and environmental benefits listed in paragraph 6.9 of the Grounds of Appeal, as well as the fact a five year housing land supply cannot currently be demonstrated. In this instance due weight can be given to proposals that contribute to the housing supply deficit. However, the contribution to the deficit of the proposed additional dwelling and the subsequent economic benefits of employment during construction would be modest at best and therefore attracts limited weight. 4.11 The Council consider that the appeal proposal would be contrary to paragraph 14 of the NPPF, which sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development.