®Planning appeal decision
Walden, Common Hill, Medstead, Hampshire, GU34 5LZ
erection of two self-build dwellinghouses
- Authority
- East Hampshire District Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Nicholls H
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the location of the development would accord with development plan policies in terms of access to facilities and minimising car dependency
- the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area
- the effects of the proposal on the River Itchen Special Area of Conservation
What decided it
The unmitigated adverse effects on the integrity of the River Itchen Special Area of Conservation and downstream protected sites, which cannot be secured by condition alone and require a planning obligation, provide a strong reason for refusal that outweighs the benefits of housing delivery in the context of housing land supply shortfall.
The modest benefits of two dwellings towards housing supply, economic benefits from construction, and contribution to self-build housing were significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the collective harms of locational conflict with sustainability policies, adverse effects on character and appearance, and unmitigated harm to protected sites; the presumption in favour of sustainable development did not apply.
Framework references: 11
Plan policies cited: Policy 1 of the Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan, JCS Policy CP2, JCS Policy CP10, JCS Policy CP14, JCS Policy CP19, saved policy H14 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (2006), JCS Policy CP20, JCS Policy CP29, JCS Policy CP21, JCS Policy CP22
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.