Appeal 6002082

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development refers to the demolition of existing dwellings (plural). As it appears that the existing dwelling, Southview, would be the only dwelling to be demolished, I have taken this as a typographical error.

The proposal is for permission in principle (PIP). The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The PIP consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or PIP stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second, ‘technical details consent’ (TDC) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development. Other detailed matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application if permission in principle is granted.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

The appeal site comprises the dwelling, Southview, and its gardens, and the equestrian land and buildings to the rear which are accessed via a track from [address] which extends alongside Southview. Southview is one of a number of dwellings which form a clear ribbon of development that front on to [address].

The site is relatively flat and well enclosed on its treed and vegetated boundaries. A public right of way (PROW) runs outside the rear boundary of the site.

The number of residential dwellings proposed appears to be fixed at 9 No. rather than expressed as a range. Whilst limited detail has been offered to enable an assessment of such, there does not appear to be a dispute between the parties about the site’s capacity to accommodate that number of dwellings.

In terms of the location and land use, the site is situated along [address] which leads from the village of Medstead, albeit at a distance of around at least 1.3km from its facilities which include a primary school, small shop, village hall and play area. [address] is devoid of dedicated footways and streetlighting for much of its length. The road is rural in character and has variable widths, with some areas of verge which appear to be informally used for refuge from passing vehicles.

The current adopted development plan includes the East Hampshire District Local Plan: [name] (2014) (JCS). Policy CP10 of the JCS sets a target for housing within the plan period to 2028 in accordance with the defined spatial strategy, including a provision of a minimum of 150 dwellings at other villages outside the National Park. It also states that sites will be identified through the Local Plan: Allocations, SDNP Local Plan or [name] and settlement policy boundaries adjusted accordingly.

Policy CP2 states that new development for the period until 2028 will be directed to the most sustainable and accessible locations for new development. It identifies a settlement hierarchy with rated levels 1 to 5, with 1 being the most sustainable and 5 being the most rural villages and least sustainable locations for new development. Medstead has a rating of 4, placing it at the second to lowest level of the sustainability hierarchy in recognition of its limited range of everyday facilities. Policy CP2 also indicates that new development will make the best use of previously developed land (PDL) and buildings within existing built-up areas.

The JCS policies map identifies a settlement policy boundary (SPB) for Medstead. At present, this is drawn relatively tightly around two clusters of built form in the village centre and close to the existing facilities. Policy 1 of the Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan (adopted 2016) (MFMNP) sets out that development on land within the SPBs will be supported, subject to accordance with relevant policies. The appeal site falls outside of the SPBs and therefore, by extension, is in the countryside in policy terms.

Policy CP19 of the JCS relates to development in the countryside and identifies that the only types of development permissible are those with a genuine and proven need for a countryside location, such as for rural or other related enterprises. Additionally, saved Policy H14 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: [name] (2006) (Local Plan) relates to housing outside SPBs and sets out that such will only be permitted where essential for full-time agricultural or rural workers. No case has been advanced that there is a genuine need for the development to be located within the countryside.

Policy CP31 of the JCS sets out that new development should be located and designed to reduce the need to travel and that the fullest possible use of sustainable modes of transport (including cycling, walking and public and community transport) will be encouraged.

Whilst not strictly isolated, the site’s location in the countryside is a reasonable distance from the limited facilities in the village and further still from the nearest larger settlement of [name]. The routes to the village facilities in Medstead are largely unlit and do not segregate pedestrians from vehicles, as is typical of the village in general. The roads are subject to 30mph speed limits and are relatively modestly trafficked. However, the combination of distance, rural character and lack of pedestrian protection and lighting would materially inhibit the travel choices made by future residents and perpetuate a reliance on private vehicles. [name] accept that cycling to village facilities may be an option for some, and the existence of a limited bus service on two days of the week is of some modest benefit, this would likely be a limited reduction in the reliance on private vehicles.

A number of sites adjoining the built up form of the village were allocated in the Local Plan (Part 2): Housing and [name] plan (adopted 2016) which supports the position that Medstead was considered a suitable location for some further small scale local development. However, the location of these sites appears to have been deliberately selected for proximity to village services to limit the need for future residents to travel or do so by non-car modes for at least some journeys. The appeal site is not directly comparable for these reasons.

I have also taken account of the range of social clubs and community events that run regularly in the village and its surroundings. The existence of these clubs also reduces the need for some residents to travel for recreational purposes and adds modestly to the sustainability of the village. I have also considered the extent to which deliveries and home working could reduce the dependency on residents needing to travel by private vehicles, but these aspects are not unique to the site’s location and I do not consider this a persuasive point.

Furthermore, the use of footpaths or bridlepaths as an alternative to walking along the highway and areas of verge would also be unlikely to make a material difference to the number of car journeys made by future residents. This is due to their surfacing and variable condition, similar absence of lighting and the indirectness of the routes which would still take in sections of the highways shared with vehicles in any event.

The location of the development would be to the rear of an existing frontage dwelling. The MFMNP describes the rural character of the village and how it expanded through the development of mainly bungalows along road frontages with large garden plots backing onto open countryside in a stellate form. The MFMNP indicates that it remains an unusual feature of the parish today and I concur. The long ribbon developments extending away from the village centre do not appear to have many instances of residential development sitting behind the frontage dwellings, with ‘The Oaks, [address]’ being perhaps one limited exception to this rule. The existence of long garden plots or paddocks at the rear is consistent with the way the settlement evolved. The MFMNP also sets out that a deliberate choice was made to exclude some gardens from the redefined SPBs even where houses are within it for the reason that it would prevent backland development where such would be harmful to the character of the area.

Notwithstanding that the area is not specifically designated for its special character and that there are some non-residential buildings and features in these garden plots on the appeal site and elsewhere, the appeal development would introduce a marked change through the introduction of a development of the scale, spread and intensity of residential development proposed. Whilst the existing stables and other buildings on the site are of limited visual appeal, they are relatively typical of such functional buildings in the countryside and are inoffensive in views to the site from the PROW.

The introduction of nine dwellings on the site and provision of an altered urbanised access onto [address] would materially alter the character and visual quality of the area through the use, location and amount of development. Though the definitive layout, scale and appearance of the dwellings would be considered at TDC stage, there would clearly be visual harm of a localised nature from public views from [address] and the adjoining PROW to the rear of the site.

Bringing all the above factors together, the location and land use would not accord with the aforementioned policies, specifically policies CP2, CP10, CP19 and CP31 of the JCS, policy 1 of the MFMNP and policy H14 of the Local Plan.

The policies listed on the Council’s decision notice, CP28 (green infrastructure) and CP29 (design) would be more relevant at TDC stage.

The appellant advances that the site constitutes PDL as it has a number of buildings on it and the remainder of the land is used for associated equestrian purposes, i.e. grazing. A breakdown of the amount of building and hardstanding has been provided as 1554 sqm relative to the 0.9 hectare site size indicating its modest proportion relative to the whole site. The definition of PDL in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) refers to land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed).

Notwithstanding the common ownership, the house and garden are part of a planning unit that is physically and functionally separate from the equestrian use. I do not dispute that the house and its garden comprise PDL. However, the land in use for equestrian purposes has two parts; the buildings and their immediate curtilage at the rearward part of the site represent just over a third of this area and has the characteristic of PDL land. The larger midsection is open grazing land and appears largely undeveloped.

Whilst the caravan is a minor anomaly in terms of its siting, the PDL, comprising the buildings and associated hardstanding which more clearly appear to merit redevelopment are situated at the far opposite ends of the site. Due to its size, undeveloped character and openness, I do not agree that the midsection of grazing land should be taken to be PDL or, moreover, that even if it were that it should all be developed in any case.

A different point on which the parties agree is that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year supply of housing land with appropriate buffer as required by the Framework. The evidence suggests that the position is at around 2.7 years’ worth or 2.9 years’ worth1. In either scenario, the shortfall is over 2,000 dwellings, which is serious, and this serious shortfall appears to have persisted for some time. As such, I have treated the provisions of Framework paragraph 11 d) as being engaged. 1 as of November 2025, Council Statement

The Council has published a draft East Hampshire Local Plan 2021-2040 (eLP) under Regulation 182. The progression of the eLP and the Council’s stated intent to submit a Regulation 19 version indicates that a planned solution to the housing land shortfall is progressing in a meaningful way.

Under the eLP, the Council intend to retain the tier 4 category of Medstead but to extend its SPBs to include some of the existing dwellings that radiate away from the village centre, such as along [address] and [address]. The extended SPB would not necessarily include the full depth of the garden plots or land to the far rear, although whether for reasons similar to the MFMNP is unclear. The appeal site to receive the bulk of the nine dwellings would largely remain outside of the future SPB but would adjoin it.

The future extension of the SPB as such may lend support to the principle of intensification or redevelopment of sites within its confines, although it would not strictly suggest that development beyond the frontage dwellings will be acceptable. In any event, the examination on the eLP is yet to consider the direction of travel for the sustainability of Medstead and its more distant component areas. The apportionment of growth and related policies within the eLP will also likely reflect Medstead’s role as a lower tier settlement with a modest range of facilities. As such, at this stage, I attribute it limited weight. Even if unchanged by the time it is adopted, the development would still largely conflict with eLP policies that seek to limit development to the SPBs in any event.

The parties acknowledge that given the site size, there would be a requirement under any future TDC stage to provide 40% affordable housing in order to comply with policy CP13 of the JCS. Although it would be captured at a later date, I have considered this a future benefit of the scheme.

The location, land use and amount of development proposed are not acceptable in principle under the terms of the current development plan.

As the provisions of paragraph 11d) of the Framework are engaged, I must consider the harms and benefits from the scheme.

The benefits would include the provision of nine dwellings, some of which would become affordable housing and at the scale of scheme which is readily developable. This would help to boost the supply of housing which aligns with the objectives of the Framework and subsequently emphasised through written ministerial statements3. In the context of the serious housing shortfall and relative to the scale of the scheme, I attribute these benefits great weight.

The reuse of the PDL element of the site and removal of the caravan would be beneficial and there would be economic benefits during construction and occupation of the dwellings by future residents. These aspects collectively attract additional modest weight in favour of the development.

The harms would result from the delivery of a sizeable quantum of development in a location peripheral to the limited local facilities which would result in a net increase of eight households being highly reliant on private vehicles. Whilst 2 of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 3 Including letter from [name] dated 30 July 2024 – ‘[name] in Building the [name] recognising the Framework’s distinction between the sustainable travel opportunities in urban areas compared with rural locations, there are limited opportunities to minimise this harm on the basis of the site’s location. As such, this is a significant harm.

Harm would also result from a change to the character and appearance of the area, introducing a sizeable quantum of residential development behind the established linear form of the village away from its nucleus, undermining the rural character and openness of the area beyond the components of the site which have PDL characteristics. This would also be demonstrably harmful.

As such, notwithstanding the reduced weight I attach to the locational conflict with the development plan, the totality of harms would be significant and demonstrable and therefore do not outweigh the benefits of the scheme in this case. Consequently, the provisions of the Framework do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

Whilst the appellant’s evidence suggests that the provision of the access to the site and the associated visibility splays could be conditioned, this is not possible under the PIP stage. Nonetheless, this is not an issue on which the Council has raised concerns and I find no reason to disagree.

Both parties have provided different appeal decisions in support of their respective positions which I have taken into account. I have also considered the differences highlighted by the appellant in relation to the recent appeal decision for an adjacent site but do not find them so compelling so as to dictate the outcome of the scheme before me.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal conflicts with the development plan and there are no other considerations of such materiality that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance therewith. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.