A GOVERNMENT inspector has dismissed an appeal against the decision by East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) to refuse an application for the development of 12 detached homes on land to the rear of Glebe House on School Lane, Bentley.

The application by Chris Gwilliam was turned down by EHDC planners last March on grounds that it was for a greenfield site outside the settlement policy boundary for Bentley and that there was “not a genuine and proven local need” for a countryside location for the proposed housing. Nor was it being promoted as a rural exception site to meet local affordable housing needs.

Supported by 34 public objections and “strong objection” from Bentley Parish Council, EHDC planners were also of the opinion that the proposed backland form of development would be “significantly out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area” which is characterised by frontage development to School Lane.

They did not like the “suburban” design of the dwellings, nor the layout of the cul-de-sac-style development with its “potential for noise and disturbance to occupiers of the existing and proposed properties fronting School Lane”.

And there was concern about issues surrounding on-site parking, surface water run-off and foul water drainage, and for the future of the great crested newt, said to be present on the site.

In determining his decision, inspector David Cliff considered sustainability of the location, the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, provision for affordable housing, surface water drainage, the impact on biodiversity, in particular great crested newts, and the impact on neighbouring properties.

He concluded that being outside the settlement policy boundary the proposed development would be contrary to EHDC planning policy, and that it would “unacceptably detract from the rural character of the area to the detriment of its countryside setting”.

Mr Cliff could find no evidence of affordable housing provision, nor was he satisfied that the proposed development would accord with the relevant EHDC drainage and flood risk policies.

While the the site was said to have the potential to offer a terrestrial habitat for great crested newts, given their previously recorded existence at nearby Bentley Pond, the appellant’s preliminary ecological assessment stated that the development would result in the loss of this habitat and that site clearance would result in high potential for the killing or injury of this protected species.

It recommended further surveys of four ponds within 500 metres of the site in order to inform a European protected species mitigation licence application, as well as design mitigation.

Given the information provided, Mr Cliff could not be certain that there was a reasonable prospect of a licence being issued.

However, the inspector did not believe the proposed development would result in an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residential properties in terms of noise and disturbance, nor was he concerned over on-site parking or the sewage system.

In all, Mr Cliff remained unconvinced that the greenfield development met the criteria to be considered as a rural exception site and there was no evidence to suggest the appellant’s claim that the development would free up more affordable dwellings elsewhere in the area.

Satisfied that EHDC was able to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing and despite the appellant stating that the proposed development could be delivered in the earlier years of EHDC’s Local Plan, Mr Cliff concluded: “The moderate benefits of the housing proposed in this case would not outweigh the harm I have identified in the context of the development plan.

“I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”