Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Notice varied and upheld18 July 20243334938

Springbridge Farm, Highbridge Road, Highbridge, Eastleigh, Hampshire, SO50 6HN

Planning appeal 3334938 at Springbridge Farm, Highbridge Road, Highbridge, Eastleigh, Hampshire, SO50 6HN (Winchester City Council) was allowed in part (a split decision) on 18 July 2024 by Inspector Fagan N, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the matters alleged in the notice have occurred and, if so, whether they constitute a breach of planning control (grounds (b) and (c)).

Enforcement notice appeal against alleged material change of use of agricultural land to a mixed use (retail shop, food kiosk, B8 storage, generators, campsite, agriculture/horticulture, siting of caravans/mobile homes as residential accommodation) and associated operational development (buildings, polytunnels, septic tank/cesspit, hard-surfacing)

Appeal type
enforcement · Enforcement Notice
Procedure
Inquiry
Development
other · Change of use
Inspector
Fagan N
Postcode
SO50 6HN

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • Whether the matters alleged in the notice have occurred and, if so, whether they constitute a breach of planning control (grounds (b) and (c))
  • Whether the residential use and associated building are immune from enforcement action by the passage of time (ground (d))
  • Whether the unauthorised mixed use complies with development plan policies and, if not, whether there is any reason to allow it to continue anyway, and whether the agricultural/horticultural use justifies a temporary or personal permission for a dwelling (ground (a))
  • Whether the steps required by the notice exceed what is necessary to remedy the breach (ground (f))
  • Whether the compliance period specified falls short of what should reasonably be allowed (ground (g))

What decided it

The appellant failed to demonstrate a genuine agricultural functional and financial need for a dwelling or the wider mixed-use paraphernalia, while the unauthorised uses caused significant harm to the character and landscape of the countryside, contrary to the development plan.

The harm to the rural character and landscape from the unauthorised mixed use and lack of justified agricultural need outweighed the appellant's personal circumstances and human rights considerations, so the notice was upheld save for the purely agricultural elements, for which permission was granted.

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies
Policy MTRA4Policy DM11Policy CP13Policy CP20Policy DM15Policy DM16Policy DM23Policy DM20Policy CP16Policy DM17Policy DM18
Judgments
Kestrel Hydro v SSCLG & Spelthorne BC [2015] EWHC 1654 (Admin), [2016] EWCA Civ 784; Caldwell & Timberstore Ltd v SSLUHC & Buckinghamshire Council [2024] EWCA Civ 467; Welwyn Hatfield BC v SSCLG & Beesley [2011] UKSC 15; [2011] JPL 1183; Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v SSETR & Harrow LBC (No. 2) [2000] EWCA Civ 5569; Murfitt v SSE & East Cambridgeshire CC [1980] JPL 598

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 applied

The 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

47 other decided appeals within two kilometres of this site. In the app every dot opens its decision, and its letter wherever one was published, and you can draw your own site to see what has been decided around it.AllowedDismissedSplitThis decision
An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter
Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.
Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app
Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.
Start your free trial

More decisions in Winchester

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2024

  1. Dismissed15 October 20266012051
    Cupressus, Durley Brook Road, Southampton, SO32 2AR
  2. Allowed10 August 20266005547
    Land at Lower Paddock, Bent Lane, Hambledon, PO7 4QP
  3. Allowed29 July 20266005463
    62 Downs Road,, South Wonston,, Winchester, SO21 3EW
  4. Allowed17 April 20266001841
    Spring Meadows, Paradise Lane, Waltham Chase, Hampshire, SO32 2TH
  5. Notice upheld26 March 20263327152
    2 Calpe Yard St. Thomas Street, Winchester, SO23 9HE

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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every appeal around it, with its letter to read and the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out.