Planning appeal decision
Sherfield Oaks Golf Course, Wildmoor Lane, Sherfield-On-Loddon, Hook, RG27 0HB
Planning appeal 3368685 at Sherfield Oaks Golf Course, Wildmoor Lane, Sherfield-On-Loddon, Hook, RG27 0HB (Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council) was dismissed on 14 November 2025 by Inspector Smith H, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the proposed development would provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to national policy, the development strategy for the area, proximity or access to services, facilities and opportunities for sustainable transport, and the transition to a low carbon future.
redevelopment of existing golf course maintenance yard to provide 4 no. dwellings; with associated garaging, parking, turning, landscaping, private amenity space and access. Provision of new golf course maintenance yard, and reconfiguration/expansion of golf course car park
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Smith H
- Postcode
- RG27 0HB
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the proposed development would provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to national policy, the development strategy for the area, proximity or access to services, facilities and opportunities for sustainable transport, and the transition to a low carbon future
- the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area
- whether the proposal would preserve the setting of the Sherfield-on-Loddon Conservation Area and the setting of nearby heritage assets
- the effect of the proposal on highway and pedestrian safety, with particular regard to visibility splays for the proposed residential development
- the effect of the proposal on nearby trees and Breach Copse SINC
What decided it
The harm to the setting of the Conservation Area and the Grade II listed wall, combined with the unsuitability of the location for sustainable residential development, outweighed the modest housing benefit, particularly given the Framework's strong protection for designated heritage assets.
The modest benefit of three dwellings and economic contribution during construction was outweighed by less-than-substantial but considerable harm to designated heritage assets, harm to character and appearance, unsuitability of location for sustainable development, highway safety concerns, and harm to trees and the SINC; the Framework's heritage protection policies provided a strong reason for refusal displacing the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy SS1Policy SS6Policy CN9Policy EM1Policy EM4Policy EM10Policy EM11Policy D1Policy G1
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 116Paragraph 129Paragraph 214Paragraph 215Paragraph 216
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 Basingstoke and Deane
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025
- Dismissed26 October 20266011048Purdues Farm, Mortimer Lane, Fair Oak Green, Stratfield Saye, RG7 2DL
- Allowed26 October 2026600755075 Park Prewett Road, Basingstoke, RG24 9RG
- Dismissed20 October 20266011464Old Kiln House, Silchester Road, Tadley, RG263PX
- Dismissed13 October 20266011822Spindles, Winchester Road, Burghclere, RG20 9DX
- Dismissed13 October 20266011099Locksbridge Farm, Cufaude Lane, Bramley, RG26 5DL
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.
®