Planning appeal decision
Land at 10 Kings Hill, Beech, Alton, GU34 4AL
Planning appeal 3275552 at Land at 10 Kings Hill, Beech, Alton, GU34 4AL (East Hampshire District Council) was allowed in part (a split decision) on 15 November 2021 by Inspector Hawkins S, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the building is a suitable form of development in the countryside, having regard to the Development Plan and the Framework.
without planning permission, the material change of use from agriculture to residential and the erection of a building for residential purposes
- Authority
- East Hampshire District Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Change of use
- Inspector
- Hawkins S
- Postcode
- GU34 4AL
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the building is a suitable form of development in the countryside, having regard to the Development Plan and the Framework
- The effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside
- If there is conflict with the Development Plan and the Framework, whether this is outweighed by other considerations
What decided it
The building is not a suitable form of development in the countryside contrary to the Development Plan spatial strategy and causes unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside, which cannot be outweighed by the personal circumstances of the occupier.
The personal circumstances of the building's occupier weighed slightly in favour of granting permission, but this was outweighed by the building's unsuitability as countryside development, the unacceptable harm to character and appearance, and the conflict with the Development Plan and Framework.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy CP19Policy CP10Policy CP14Policy CP12Policy CP20Policy CP29Policy H14Policy BPC02Policy BPC06
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 8Paragraph 56Paragraph 80
- Judgments
- Cardiff Rating Authority v Guest Keens [1949] 1 KB 385; Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v SSTER (No 2) [2000] 2 PLR 102; Measor v SSETR & Tunbridge Wells DC [1999] JPL 182; R (aoa Save Woolley Valley Action Group Ltd) v Bath and North East Somerset Council [2012] EWHC 2161 (Admin)
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in East Hampshire District Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2021
- Invalid29 July 202633487508 Downhouse Road, Waterlooville, PO8 0TX
- Dismissed17 June 20266005417Land to the South of Kingsley Tennis Centre, Forge Road, Bordon, GU35 9NG
- Notice varied and upheld22 January 2026334161916B The Green, Rowland's Castle, PO9 6BN
- Quashed On Legal Grounds30 December 20253346355High Acres Willis Lane, Four Marks, Alton, GU34 5AP
- Notice varied and upheld11 December 20253368242Lot 10b Comley Hill, Rowlands Castle, Hampshire, PO9 5ND
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®