Case Reference: 3274922

Appeal Decision
Inquiry Held 28 September to 1 October 2021
Site Visit made on 12 October 2021
by Janet Wilson BA BTP MRTPI DMS
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 9 November 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/H1705/W/21/3274922
Land west of Pond Close, Overton, Hampshire RG25 3LY
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.
• The application Ref 20/02375/OUT, dated 27 August 2020, was refused by notice dated
19 February 2021.
• The development proposed for an outline planning application with all matters reserved
except access for 75 dwellings, open space, allotments, landscaping, and access via
Sheep Fair Lane.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The proposal seeks outline planning permission with all matters reserved
except access. The application was accompanied by a parameters plan, an
access plan, and a plan indicating steps beyond the appeal site linking the
development to the public footway at ‘Dellands’. A concept masterplan showing
how the parameters might later be worked up in more detail was also
submitted but is illustrative only.
3. However, as the number of dwellings is fixed at 75, and to give some credence
to the illustrative site plan it locates the built form of the proposal in the
eastern and southern parts of the site. The Inquiry focused on these locations
including the extent and position of the proposed open space in the
consideration of the landscape and visual effect of the proposal, matters which
are addressed below.
4. The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) was updated and
published on 20 July 2021. The parties referred to this document extensively in
evidence and at the Inquiry. For the sake of clarity any references in this
decision refer to the July 2021 version.
5. The Secretary of State has concluded, in line with the original conclusion of the
Council, that the proposal would not represent EIA development within the
meaning of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact
Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended) and thus an environmental
statement is not required. I have no reason to disagree with the Secretary of
State’s conclusion on this matter.
6. Two statements of common ground were agreed between the main parties. The
first relating to general matters and the second relating solely to matters of
Housing land supply.
7. The Council clarified in its statement of case that reason 1 in its decision notice
should have referred to the Neighbourhood plan policies H1, H3 and LBE1. The
appellants raised no objection to the inclusion of these policies which were
referred to in the officers report and I have considered the appeal in the light of
these policies.
8. The Council confirmed that agreement had been reached on the wording of a
legal agreement which would address the matters highlighted in the second
reason for refusal. On this basis the Council and the appellants reached
common ground with the Council no longer pursuing the second reason for
refusal. This decision reflects that change in position.
9. The Inquiry sat for 4 days. An unaccompanied site visit was undertaken
following the close of the inquiry and observations from all viewpoints identified
by the main parties and those identified by representors.
Main Issues
10. The main issues are:
• Whether the appeal site is a suitable location for housing in the context of
the development plan and national policy.
• The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the
surrounding area with reference to landscape character, scenic character,
and visual quality.
Reasons
Development plan
11. The site lies outside the settlement boundary of Overton though within the
Overton Neighbourhood Plan area. For the purposes of planning policy, the
appeal site lies within the open countryside.
12. The adopted development plan comprises the Basingstoke and Deane Local
Plan 2011-2029 (2026) (BDLP) and the Overton Neighbourhood Plan 2016 to
2029 (2016) (NP). The plan outlines that new homes will be built in and around
the edge of the Borough’s main settlements, focusing growth primarily around
Basingstoke and the larger settlements of which Overton is one. Policy SS1 of
the BDLP sets out a spatial strategy to deliver the Borough’s housing
requirement through a combination of capacity within settlement boundaries,
local plan allocations and land allocated through the neighbourhood planning
process. It also provides that new housing can be considered outside of defined
Settlement Boundaries where such development would meet criteria set out in
the other policies in the plan or where it is essential for the proposal to be
located in the countryside.
13. Policy SS5 of the BDLP states that it will be necessary to identify at least 150
homes in and around the defined Settlement Policy Boundaries of Overton
which the NP indicated in 2016. The appeal site was identified as a potential
reserve housing site however it was not subsequently removed and does not
appear as an identified housing site in the development plan including within
the ‘made’ NP.
14. Policy SS6 addresses new housing in the countryside listing specific criteria to
be met. For the purposes of this appeal these include ensuring that
development: is not significantly visually intrusive in the landscape; respects
the qualities of the local landscape; and would be sympathetic to the character
and visual quality of the area.
15. The NP ‘made’ in 2016, forms part of the Development Plan though for the
purposes of housing it is of an age beyond which it would afford protection
from development as defined in paragraph 14 of the Framework. That said, it
does not mean that the provisions of the NP are afforded no weight. The appeal
proposal does not expressly conflict with the wording of NP policy H1 which
addresses development within settlement boundaries and on allocated sites,
neither of which apply to the appeal site. Similarly, whilst the NP identifies sites
for 150 dwellings, it is important to note that the BDLP requirements indicate
‘at least’ 150 dwellings are to be delivered whereas the NP indicates
approximately 150 dwellings.
16. The Council confirmed at the Inquiry that it ‘does not take an in-principle
objection to the appeal site being outside its Settlement Policy Boundaries’.
However, that position is subject to compliance with criteria in other relevant
policies.
17. Policy EM10 is applicable but only in so far as it relates to whether the
development contributes to local distinctiveness and a sense of place. These
are matters which, in this instance, would be determined at a detailed stage
and I do not find any fundamental conflict with Policy EM10 of the BDLP.
18. The provisions of Policy EM1 of the BDLP and Policies H3 and LBE1 of the NP
require applications for residential development to be sympathetic to the
character and visual quality of the area, respect, enhance and not be
detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape; they should
respond positively to the character of the area and the landscape.
19. Taking all of the above into account there would be some conflict with Policies
SS1, SS5 and SS6 of the BDLP, points which are not disputed between the
appellants and the Council. Consequently, the outcome of the appeal will turn
on the effect of the development on landscape character, and on the scenic and
visual quality of the area as required by Policies EM1 of the BDLP and H3 and
LBE1 of the NP. These are assessed below.
Character and Appearance
Landscape Character
20. The appeal site falls partly within the Hampshire Downs National Character
Area where the site is characteristic of the open rolling landscape dominated by
large arable fields with scattered woodland blocks. The site also spans two local
landscape character areas within the Hampshire Integrated Character
assessment these being (3B) the Test Valley Landscape Character Area and
(7B) the Hannington and Dummer Downs Landscape Character areas. Features
of note are the elevated plateau and the network of distinctive and ancient
droving roads and trackways which are established well used Public Rights of
Way (PROW)
21. The open nature of the appeal site allows it to be experienced as part of the
wider fabric of rolling verdant fields extending both west and south. The
topography of the site rises moderately from North to South with the upper
part on a plateau, the fields slope down from the middle part of the site
towards Dellands. The appeal site is set in a landscape which is surrounded by
rural features on three sides and exhibits a strong rural character. Although
housing runs along the full length of the eastern side this serves as a clear
demarcation between settlement and countryside. In its current form it offers
an experience of nature and the countryside immediately adjacent to the
settlement edge. Taking these factors into account it is a landscape which is
sensitive to change.
22. Save for the residential edge of the village at Paultons Close, Pond Close and
Seven Acres, built development is not characteristic in the localised landscape
experienced. This is particularly so to the west and south of the appeal site.
The settlement edge is prominent from the appeal site however the topography
of the surrounding area means that the main part of the settlement of Overton
is not readily visible being set on the lower slopes of the valley beyond.
23. In changing from an open agricultural field to a built form of development there
will inevitably be an effect both on and beyond the site. It is the magnitude and
consequences of the change which is disputed between the parties.
24. In respect of the character and appearance issues, my findings are reached
within the context of the various interpretations set out in the Council’s LVIA1
and the two LVIA assessments2 produced by the appellants. It also considers
the views from a range of geographical points set out by the parties which I
experienced first-hand on my site visit.
25. The parties differ significantly in terms of their assessment of the landscape
impacts of the development. The Councils position is one of major to moderate
adverse impact whereas the appellants argue that there will be a major net
beneficial effect with no material impact on the surrounding landscape
character. Such diametrically opposing views were discussed at length in
examination in chief and cross examination.
26. There was debate at the inquiry regarding aspects of the methodology and a
great deal of discussion around viewpoints. For the avoidance of doubt and
from what I have read, heard, and seen from my visit, I am satisfied that I am
able to reach a view on this matter and the approach of both parties largely
follows the guidelines contained within GLIVIA even though the conclusions
differ.
27. It was accepted by the appellants landscape witness in cross examination that
he had not considered a number of landscape elements when reaching his
conclusion that there would be an overall net benefit arising from the
development. When pressed he was unable to point to references in his proof
or LVIA to support that position and his conclusions are at odds with the
appellants original assessment. Moreover, the Pegasus LVIA assessment did
not expressly assess tranquillity nor the quiet enjoyment of the landscape from
public rights of way which are requirements of policy EM1. This was argued to
1 Lockhart Garratt (August 2021)
2 Terrafirma (July 2020) and Pegasus August 2021)
be an incomplete picture and the omissions were almost all factors identifying
adverse impacts in the appellant's first LVIA.
28. The appellants landscape evidence was, in parts, disjointed and inconsistent
with contradictory positions taken between evidence given orally and that in
the written evidence particularly relating to the benefits of new opportunities
for access to existing public rights of way. Furthermore, inconsistencies in
methodology were identified. It could not be explained in what circumstances a
low value would be attributed when a medium value had been attached to a
water feature which did not yet exist. A further inconsistency was evidenced in
the double counting of the benefit attributed to trees and hedgerows which
were in fact considered together in the appellant's LVIA and proof of evidence.
Consequently, the appellants landscape evidence applied an incomplete
analysis which was premised on the loss of arable fields and tree planting as
opposed to the effect of the built form of 75 houses on landscape character.
Taking these matters together they undermine the veracity of the appellants
landscape evidence and I have found the Councils evidence on this matter to
be more reliable.
29. The appellants identified anomalies with the Councils photographs. They raise
criticisms that some were taken from within the appeal site and not from the
sunken lanes. The suggested consequence of this being that the impact was
overplayed. The Council argued that a major to moderate adverse effect would
occur from five listed receptors. I saw my site visit all of the points identified.
Though I disagree as to the Councils conclusion on the extent of the effect on
views from the access track to Turrill Hill Farm which I judge to be
overemphasised, I agree with the Council that the effects on residents of
Poulton Close, Pond Close and Seven Acres as well as users of the sunken lanes
would be moderate to major.
30. The appellants describe the site as unremarkable with no noticeable features
and that the area is not subject to any statutory protection neither is there any
particular landscape designation provided in the current development plan. The
appeal site does not form part of a ‘valued’ landscape in the context of
Framework paragraph 174 a), but that is not to say that it is not valued by the
local community. The site lies in the countryside which is valued by local
residents and where its intrinsic character and beauty should be recognised in
accordance with paragraph 174 b) of the Framework. In this regard I find that
the appellants contention that there would be a landscape and visual benefit as
a result of the proposal, to be less than credible.
31. Reference was also made by the appellants to the landscape being at the
bottom of the hierarchy referred to in paragraph 174 of the Framework, even
so, it is acknowledged by both parties that the value in the receiving landscape
and any harm to its intrinsic beauty must be taken into account.
32. The appellants refer to paragraph 175 of the Framework however this
reference relates to the allocation of sites which is not relevant here. In any
event paragraph 175 indicates that land should be allocated where it has the
least environmental or amenity value which I do not find applies to the appeal
site.
33. There is little dispute that the boundaries of the site with the exception of part
of the western boundary, which is set away from the sunken lane, represent
mature boundaries. Nonetheless development of the site would be set in the
upper and eastern parts of the field which are the highest and most exposed
parts of the site. The existing planting on the field boundaries, would not
sufficiently mitigate the effect of the built form proposed. It would, for these
reasons have a significant and irreversible effect on the landscape character.
34. I found on my visit to the numerous viewpoints that the impact on landscape
character would conflict with the terms of policy EM1 resulting in harm to the
experience of users of the sunken lanes and by the occupiers of adjacent
residential properties. Development here would cause significant and harmful
change to landscape character.
35. The appellants argued that the site is unremarkable and that the edge of the
settlement is unappealing. Moreover, the development has the potential to
improve this unappealing edge bringing tangible and visual benefits. I did not
find that the existing edge of the settlement to be devoid of planting nor that it
was visually unappealing. The intended tree planting indicated on the
illustrative plans be insufficient so as to improve the appearance by forming a
more attractive settlement edge. There is sufficient existing planting along the
existing settlement edge to soften the character such that the benefit of
additional planting is, to my mind, overstated.
36. There is a strong relationship between the site and the settlement edge and the
appeal site forms an important buffer between Overton and the sunken lanes.
Development of the size proposed would significantly intrude into this open
area and would compromise the unspoilt rural charm of the site. This would
result in harm to its character and a loss of aspect within, across and out of the
site thereby harmfully affecting its distinctive rural character. In this regard I
agree with the Council that the farmland is more effective in respecting the
tranquillity required by policy EM1. For these reasons the development would
be materially harmful to the character of the settlement in this part of Overton
and to the experience of the users of established historic PROWs.
37. The appellants argue that some 6.25 hectares is given over to the provision of
green infrastructure with only 3.14 hectares proposed for built development.
That may be the case, however the new position of the village edge would, in
my view, be highly conspicuous. Whilst the open space would provide a green
buffer it would not be sufficient to mitigate the harm to the landscape which
would result from the development.
38. In landscape character terms the development would conflict with the
requirements of Policy EM1 and would fail to recognise the intrinsic character
and beauty of the countryside as required by paragraph 174b of the
Framework to this extent there would be conflict with both the development
plan and the Framework to which I attach substantial weight.
Scenic and Visual quality
39. The appeal site comprises open agricultural fields the southern half of which
lies on an elevated plateau. The northern half of the appeal site falls away with
a levels difference in excess of 10 metres below the plateau.
40. Land to the west is also open farmland with intervening and substantial
vegetation either side of an established and well used public footpath referred
to as a ‘sunken lane’ which is generally lower than the appeal site by a metre
or more. This route is connected to another ‘sunken lane’ which borders the
northern boundary of the site and which is lower again by around two metres.
To the east the appeal site is immediately adjacent to established residential
development at Pond Close, Paultons Close, and more recently completed
housing at Seven Acres, these developments form the settlement edge in this
part of Overton.
41. The appeal site is not crossed by any PROW. There are however acknowledged
desire lines which are clearly in regular use and which were described by the
parties as both tolerated trespass and permissive routes. These desire lines
provide clear connections from Paultons Close, Pond Close and Seven Acres to
the wider countryside and in particular to the pattern of sunken lanes which
run along the northern part of the site and parts of the western boundary.
These lanes have what the appellants describe as ‘embowering vegetation’
which is part of their charm as rural lanes. Nonetheless users of these lanes are
afforded intermittent views across the site from where the existing village edge
is visible as users move along the lanes.
42. The appeal proposal would create a new village edge significantly closer to the
sunken lanes on the western and northern sides of the site. In this regard the
views of built development from these lanes would be far more obvious even
though seen intermittently through vegetation, which is acknowledged, in some
places to be very dense. This screening is shown as being strengthened by
further planting across an area of public open space. The effect of additional
planting as indicated in the illustrative masterplan would not adequately screen
the inevitable bulk and massing of 75 houses. The screening that exists could
be strengthened by further planting within the public open space, details of
which could be agreed at the reserved matters stage, but this would not
sufficiently overcome the harmful effect which the development would have on
the scenic and visual quality of the site.
43. Notwithstanding the intention to set dwellings back from the western edge of
the site, and to supplement the proposed open space with additional
landscaping, the development would be obvious in the landscape. The new
housing would occupy the upper parts of the field which would be highly visible
from the existing development, from established and well used footpaths and
from medium and longer-range views. It was argued that longer range views of
the development would be limited though it was clear to me from walking the
site that the southern half in particular had panoramic views to the north.
Consequently, development on the site would be conspicuous in the landscape
across a wide area and would not integrate well, thereby compromising the
scenic and visual quality of the site and surroundings.
44. The development would be an urbanising feature, which would appreciably
erode the visual qualities of the field as an open and positive rural landscape
feature in this part of Overton. It is not disputed that within the 6.5 ha of open
space proposed it would be feasible to undertake additional planting. Even so,
the topography of the site would render the effectiveness of that planting to be
of limited function in screening the built form which would result from 75
dwellings. Whilst the detailed layout and design remains to be determined, it is
difficult to conceive of a detailed proposal that would not significantly impinge
on what is currently an appealing rural view devoid of any built form.
45. The wider sense of openness from this upper part of the site extending
northwards towards the valley slope would be adversely encroached upon.
There would be significant harm to the visual amenity and rural connectedness
provided by this site and its function in the wider landscape and to the quality
of the landscape afforded to residents in adjacent properties and to users of
the network of local PROWs.
46. In coming to my conclusions, I have carefully considered the differences
between the professional landscape witnesses on a range of matters, including
landscape and scenic quality. A number of these are matters of professional
opinion. In addition, there are some areas of the appellant’s approach which
were explored at the Inquiry and which the Council argued weakened the
appellant’s position.
47. In the wider context I was pointed to a number of positions in the landscape to
the north of the settlement indeed walked the extent of the Harrow Way from
its intersection with the B3105 as far as the Northfield Plantation located north
of Laverstoke Park. Along this route views south are very much limited by
extensive vegetation such that there appeared limited appreciable viewpoints
of the site from the Harrow Way.
48. I also walked the permissive path adjacent to Courts Drove as requested by
representors. Whilst this route has open views to the South in the direction of
the appeal site the land is seen against the context of the valley side and views
from this location to the appeal site would be transitory with the appeal site not
particularly noticeable. Nonetheless it is very evident when standing on the
appeal site that the vista north is extensive and development on this site would
be visible from the wider landscape even if not from the public footpaths
identified.
49. From viewpoints close to the railway line at Quidhampton3, from part way
along the B31054 and from the railway bridge adjacent to South View Cottages
from these points I found that there would be very distant views framed by the
foreground development of the village, such that any degree of adverse visual
impact from these locations would be very small.
50. Notwithstanding my findings on the wider viewpoints, I find that the impact of
the development closer to the site to be harmful for the reasons given.
Consequently, the development would conflict with Policy EM1 of the BDLP and
to policies H3 and LBE1 of the NP and to the provisions of paragraph 174 of the
Framework which seeks to protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the
countryside and the wider benefits of natural capital. These are factors to which
I afford substantial weight.
Other Matters
51. It was argued in submissions that whilst the site is unallocated this should not
be seen as adverse to its credentials as a suitable site for housing. This was
argued given the findings of the landscape capacity study and the work
undertaken in the Neighbourhood planning process all of which identified the
site as suitable for housing, and which, the appellants argued, also considered
its performance in terms of landscape and visual impact. Whilst these
documents outline historical considerations the fact remains that the site is not
allocated as a result of these processes and the development plan
3 Viewpoints 22 and 21
4 Viewpoint 20
considerations are undiminished by this history such that the site is not one
identified by the NP.
52. The appellants highlight that the Council’s Strategic Housing and Economic
Land Availability Assessment 2020 (SHELAA) identifies the appeal site as
available and likely to be achievable, neither did it raise technical matters other
than those relating to nitrates and river catchment areas. It notes historic
landfill adjacent to the site and the mineral safeguarding area neither of which
were considered by the Council to prevent development on the appeal site. The
appellants also note that all 14 sites that have been considered for Overton lie
outside the settlement boundary and therefore the appeal site ranks equally
with all others. These factors are noted but they do not alter the conclusions
reached through the NP process neither do they alter my findings on the main
issues. These are, in any event, matters which are more appropriately
addressed in relating to the review of the local plan.
53. Other references have been made to the emerging local plan however this has
not reached a sufficiently advanced stage of preparation such that it has a
bearing on the outcome of this appeal.
54. My attention has been drawn to appeal decisions by both parties including
those at Burghclere, Oakley and Bramley where significant weight had been
attributed to the provision of housing, open space, biodiversity gain and
economic benefits and also the weight to be given to development plan where
housing policies were out of date. As the issues in this case are primarily
character and appearance matters, I cannot be certain that the detailed
context or circumstances of the cited decisions are such that they set a
precedent that I would be bound to follow. In any event whilst the emphasis
placed on the importance of consistency in decision making is understood, each
decision must be determined on its own merits based on the evidence.
55. The matter of the impact of the development upon the North Wessex Downs
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) has been raised. However, it was
made clear in evidence that it was no part of the Council’s case that there was
any allegation of harm to the setting of the AONB. It was evident that long
range views from the site towards the AONB are afforded and that
consequently views from that landscape would enable views towards the site in
the context of rising land to the south. However, I have found harms to arise
from positions more localised to the appeal site than from the AONB.
56. Local representations highlighted concerns with the use of a private access
road to service the site via Seven Acres which though constructed to an
adoptable specification is not an adopted highway. However, there is no
highway objection to the proposed development and no substantive evidence
before me which would demonstrate that the proposed access via the currently
privately maintained access road, could not serve as a satisfactory access for
the appeal scheme and as such this does not alter my conclusions.
Benefits
57. The 75 dwellings would make a significant contribution to the provision of
housing locally. The provision of market homes and family housing would help
improve the housing mix and balance within a part of the Borough through a
policy compliant proportion of social housing. These are matters to which I
attribute substantial weight as a planning benefit particularly in an area of high
housing demand and especially at a time when the construction of housing will
be an important driver in economic recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic.
58. The development would generate employment during the construction period
over several years. Furthermore, there would be a reliance on associated goods
and services that would help support local businesses and tradespeople. The
new population would generate additional income that would increase spending
in the local economy and support local shops and services. These are economic
advantages to which moderate weight should be attributed.
59. The development would include an area of open space of 6.5 ha. which is in
excess of the Local Plan requirement for this size of development, the provision
of allotments and linkages to the wider network of public rights of way
(PROWs) would also be a benefit however there are routes across the site
which appear well established as access points to the PROWs. The development
would afford public access to this space on a formal basis however these
benefits are of limited weight set against the permissive or tolerated access
routes which are clearly evident on the site.
60. Biodiversity net gain, argued to be 27% and far in excess of any current
requirement, would be a benefit. However, given that this would be a
requirement of any development by virtue of Policy EM4 the benefit is of
limited additional weight in the overall balance.
61. Benefits accruing from the provisions of the Unilateral Undertaking are
necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Therefore, I
consider that the Obligation would meet the policy in paragraph 57 of the
National Planning Policy Framework. However, aside from the delivery of
affordable housing (to which I attach significant weight), the agreement
provisions are essentially required to mitigate the effect of the development.
Though I recognise that the public open space would be of some benefit to the
wider public, the provisions are required as mitigation measures and are
therefore afforded limited positive weight in favour of the scheme.
62. Emphasis has been drawn to the appellants standing as one of the largest
affordable housing providers in the area and that they would be able to
proceed to build as soon as conditions are discharged. Whilst this is
acknowledged the development is not tied to this developer nor is the provision
of affordable housing at a level above that required by the local plan. Had a
greater proportion of affordable housing been provided then additional weight
would have been attributed to that provision. As such the position of the
appellant it is of neutral weight in my deliberations.
Housing land supply
63. Whilst it was common ground that the Council could not demonstrate a five-
year supply of deliverable housing land the parties could not agree on the
extent of the shortfall. The Council argued a 4.83-year supply and the
appellant 4.2 years. The difference focused on the definition of ‘deliverable’ as
set down in the Framework and related to a small number of sites. It became
clear during the round table session that the Council’s confidence placed in the
delivery of some of the listed sites was over optimistic, but not in all cases. In
practice this means that the supply figure would be lower than that expressed
by the Council but not to the extent that the appellants set out.
64. My attention was drawn to case law which highlighted that the extent of the
shortfall is relevant to the planning balance. It was argued in evidence that the
position within the range set out was immaterial for the purposes of this
decision. Whichever of the two figures is preferred, or any position in between,
moderate weight must be attributed to that shortfall a position which weighs in
favour of the scheme.
65. Notwithstanding the difference in positions on the extent of the shortfall, it is
not disputed by either main party that the tilted balance is engaged and
therefore policies which are relevant to delivery of housing, and therefore
amongst those most important for determining the appeal proposal, are out-of-
date and paragraph 11 (d) of the Framework is engaged.
66. Paragraph 14 of the Framework states that in situations where paragraph 11(d)
applies, that a conflict with the NP would be likely to significantly and
demonstrably outweigh any benefits, subject to requirements defined at (a) to
(d) of paragraph 14. Such protection would only apply up to two years from the
‘made’ date of the neighbourhood plan which in the case of the Overton NP was
2016. Nonetheless, when taken as a whole the appeal scheme would be
incompatible with the strategy contained within the NP and would deliver
housing that is neither anticipated nor sought by the NP.
Planning Balance
67. The starting point for any planning decision is Section 38(6) of the Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires decisions to be made in
accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise, this includes the NP. Development which would conflict with and
undermine the strategy of an approved development plan and the Framework
when read as a whole would, in planning terms, be harmful.
68. The relevant approach in the Framework is, where the policies which are most
important for determining the application are out of date is to grant permission
unless the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework
policies when taken as a whole, this is often termed as the tilted balance.
69. The proposal would be on greenfield land outside the settlement of Overton
and in this regard, it would not accord with the spatial strategy in the
development plan. However, bearing in mind the housing land supply position,
this aspect of policy conflict is a matter to which I afford limited weight.
70. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the relatively good accessibility credentials,
of the development site, I have found that development would not integrate
well with the settlement of Overton in visual terms and would be obtrusive in
the wider landscape leading to encroachment into the countryside in conflict
with Paragraph 174a of the Framework. Whilst it was common ground that the
development would not affect a landscape designated as ‘valued’ it would
nonetheless significantly affect the setting of the settlement harming views
across, within and out from the site. As such development of the scale
proposed would be materially harmful to the setting of the settlement and to
the experience of users of the established PROWs.
71. Development on the site would conflict with an important strategic objective of
the Development Plan in both the Local and Neighbourhood plans; a position
which is supported by the Framework commitment to recognising the intrinsic
character and beauty of the countryside. This is a matter to which I give full
weight.
72. There is no doubt that the appeal scheme would offer substantial benefits as I
have outlined above. However, there would also be very substantial harm. I
find that the appeal scheme would undermine the Council’s plan-led approach
to the delivery of housing including that set out in the NP which was prepared
positively to deliver the requirements of the Local Plan and which identifies
sufficient allocations to accommodate the necessary growth in line with local
aspirations for the village within the plan period.
73. The basket of benefits weighs towards the positive side of the tilted balance.
However, I have found that those benefits are significantly outweighed by the
permanent and irreversible harm which would be caused to the localised
landscape adjacent to the settlement edge which would harm the character and
appearance of the area and the scenic character and visual quality of this part
of Overton.
74. Taking all these matters together including all other matters that have been
raised the adverse impacts on the landscape character, scenic character and
visual quality would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the
development when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a
whole. I have found nothing to alter my conclusion that the appeal should be
determined in accordance with the development plan and consequently, the
appeal is dismissed.
Mrs J Wilson
INSPECTOR
Appearances
For the Local Planning Authority
Ms Ruchi Parekh of Counsel (instructed by Basingstoke and Deane Borough
Council) she called -
Mr Ian Dudley – Landscape Witness
Mr Matthew Miller – Planning Witness
Mr Magnus Magnusson – Housing Land Supply Witness
Mss Jemma Cox – Senior Planner Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
Ms Emma Bethell – Team Leader Legal Basingstoke and Deane Borough
Council
For the Appellants
Mr Christopher Boyle of Queens Counsel (instructed by Turleys) he called: -
Mrs Aaron Wright – Planning Witness
Mr Steven Brown – Housing Land Supply
Mr Andrew Cook – Planning Witness
Mr S Brown – Woolf Bond Planning LLP
Mr T Alder – Lester Aldridge Law
Interested Parties
Mrs Anne Phillips Overton Parish Council
Mrs Clare Brady – local resident (representing residents group)
Documents received prior to the close of the Inquiry
LI Doc 1 Opening Statement by Mr Boyle on behalf of the appellants
LI Doc 2 Opening Statement Ms R Pareck on behalf of the Council
LI Doc 3 Final Draft of Unilateral Undertaking
LI Doc 4 Corrected statement of Common ground – (dates and status)
LI Doc 5 Additional Communication from Mrs Brady relating to the Unilateral
Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act
LI Doc 6 Site Visit Itinerary agreed by Council and appellant
LI Doc 7 Updated schedule of planning conditions
LI Doc 8 Closing submissions Ms Parekh on behalf of the Council
LI Doc 9 Closing submissions Mr Boyle on behalf of the Appellant
LI Doc 10 Comments on planning conditions from Mrs Brady local resident
Documents received after the Inquiry closed
LI Doc 11 Representation from Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP dated 27 September
2021
LI Doc 12 Signed Unilateral Undertaking received on 13 October 2021