AN outline application for a motorists’ service station comprising petrol filling station, 60-bedroom hotel and restaurant, with drive-through restaurant and coffee shop, off the roundabout on the A31 at Holybourne has been turned down at appeal.

The application, by Lamron Developments (Holybourne) Ltd, was refused by East Hampshire District Council planners last July on grounds that it would comprise “a major intrusion of development” on a rural site located outside the settlement boundary for Alton, and which is not allocated for development.

It was felt that the proposed development, by virtue of its size and the extent of the facilities proposed, “would represent a retail and entertainment destination in its own right, rather than a road-user facility proportionate to the primary function of supporting the safety and welfare of road users”.

Furthermore, the cumulative floor space of the proposal would “significantly exceed the locally-set threshold for requiring an impact study of existing centres” and that the “excessive size and scale” of the proposed development, together with the indicative height of the buildings, would “contrast sharply with the open, rural character of the site”, would fail to conserve the tranquil, natural character of the landscape, and would harm the outlook and tranquility currently enjoyed by the occupants of the two adjacent properties, one of which is a Listed building.

Following a two-day public hearing at Alton Assembly Rooms on April 26-27, inspector GP Jones considered the main issues to be whether the principle and nature of the development proposed would be acceptable in this location and would comply with relevant development plan policies and national guidance, whether sufficient information had been provided to assess properly the impact of the proposal on Alton and other town centres, the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and, in particular, on the setting of the Grade II Upper Neatham Mill House.

In his report, the inspector pointed out that “due to the countryside location there is a requirement for the appellant to demonstrate a proven need for the proposed facilities”.

Having looked at the location of neighbouring budget hotels, in Farnham, Winchester and Four Marks, and at alternative sites for a new hotel – including the Coors Brewery site which, he said, was “not advanced enough” in planning terms, and at Lynch Hill and Wilsom Road, which were “unlikely to be available for a hotel” – the inspector concluded that there were no alternative sites and that there was indeed a need for such a hotel in the Alton area.

But he also felt there was “already adequate provision for motorists as regards petrol filling stations” and refreshments along this stretch of the A31.

While the appellant argued that the level of provision proposed on the site would be required to make the scheme economically viable, Mr Jones was not convinced that the scale of development proposed was either “necessary or proportionate” to support the safety and welfare of road users traversing this stretch of the A31.

Furthermore, in his opinion, the proposal would give rise to less than substantial harm to the setting of a Listed building, would have a significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, and a proven need for the overall level of development has not been demonstrated.

In his report, Mr Jones added: “In addition, some of the possible benefits of the proposal that have been cited would be tempered by associated dis-benefits.

For example, the proposed new facilities would be likely to compete to a degree with those already existing in Alton and Holybourne, and sufficient information has not been provided to allow for a robust impact test to be undertaken.

“Also, the proposed ecological mitigation would largely be required to try to offset the loss of habitat that developing most of the site would entail.”

In dismissing the appeal, Mr Jones concluded that “none of the benefits of the proposal in terms of sustainable development…. would outweigh the significant harm that would arise from the development”.