On 24 March 2025, a formal request was submitted to Medstead Parish Council asking it to act as the Claimant in a Judicial Review (JR) of the recent planning permission granted for the Beechlands Road development.
Importantly, Medstead Parish Council formally objected to this application, and two of its councillors spoke against it at the East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) planning meeting. As many residents who were present in person — or who later watched the proceedings via EHDC’s video link — will confirm, the decision to approve the application was met with shock and disbelief. The recording of the meeting remains available to view on EHDC’s website for six months following the meeting.
The request identifies multiple serious concerns that may render the decision legally challengeable. These include:
Failure to consult the public on the true scope of development in South Medstead
Improper reliance on outdated precedent
Procedural and legal errors
Lack of environmental oversight
The Parish Council has confirmed that the matter will be discussed at its next full council meeting on 9 April 2025.
📣 If wish to share relevant information or concerns, please contact Mrs Julie Russell, Clerk to Medstead Parish Council, at clerk@medsteadpc.org.
💬 You are also warmly invited to join the discussion on our community platform: 👉 https://www.beechlands-rd-community.online/forum/forum/52/ Simply start a new topic or comment under the threads already there. Regardless of how obvious something might seem, please don’t hesitate to share it — important points are often overlooked. We’re aiming for an open and practical exchange of information
Why This Is, in Our Opinion, the Right Course of Action
The following are substantiated and evidenced grounds that collectively justify a Judicial Review of the Beechlands Road approval. Each point highlights a potential breach of planning law, policy, or due process:
⚖️1. Illegality – Failure to Apply EIA Law to Cumulative Development
⚖️ 2. Procedural Impropriety – Failure to Disclose Strategic Intent and Monitor Impact
⚖️ 3. Procedural Impropriety – Fragmentation of Impact Assessment
⚖️ 4. Illegality and Irrationality – Tilted Balance Applied Without Baseline Evidence
⚖️ 5. Failure to Give Lawful and Adequate Reasons
On 20 March 2025, East Hampshire District Council approved an outline planning application for 62 homes on land west of Beechlands Road in South Medstead1.
At first glance, this might seem routine — outline permissions are a common step in the planning process. But this decision revealed something far deeper: a planning system no longer functioning in the public interest, and a leadership culture unwilling to take responsibility for its own failures.2
As an outline application, this proposal included no binding plans for layout, drainage, access, or ecological mitigation. All the critical factors that should determine whether development is appropriate — road safety, sustainability, infrastructure capacity, biodiversity impact — were either missing or deferred to an unspecified future stage. In a village like Medstead, which has already experienced significant and largely uncoordinated population growth, this absence of detail makes it impossible to assess cumulative harm.
And yet, the application was treated as though no significant impacts were expected — a textbook case of the absence of errors fallacy: assuming there is no problem simply because no proper effort was made to test for one. Without meaningful investigation, there can be no reliable conclusion that adverse impacts would not occur — a condition that must be satisfied before any presumption in favour of development can apply, even under the ‘tilted balance’.
Yet councillors still voted to approve it. Why?
Because the application was assessed under Paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework, also known as the “tilted balance.”
This clause is triggered when a local authority — in this case, EHDC — cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land. When that happens, the default assumption is that planning permission should be granted, unless the harms “significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.”
But — and this is critical — the tilted balance only applies to proposals that are demonstrably sustainable. That is not a formality. It is a legal threshold. If a site fails that test, the presumption does not apply. And in this case, even councillors themselves admitted that the proposal was not sustainable — and approved it anyway.
More fundamentally, the tilted balance was only triggered because EHDC failed to meet its statutory housing targets. And yet no one has been held accountable.
In any other profession, repeated failure to meet essential objectives leads to consequences. You lose the contract. You resign. You step aside. But in EHDC’s case, failure is absorbed into the process and repurposed to justify even more harmful outcomes.
Are the national housing targets unrealistic? Possibly — but only if we keep building the way we always have. This is where leadership matters. Local authorities must challenge flawed policy, yes — but they must also act with urgency and imagination to reduce the harm it causes.
That means planning around real-world constraints. It means embracing design innovation. It means adopting tools already in use across better-balanced housing markets — where land is used more efficiently, infrastructure is prioritised, and communities are strengthened, not sidelined.
EHDC has done none of that. Instead, it has hidden behind a hollow framework — and left the consequences to fall on the very people it is meant to represent.
The site was declared “sustainable” not because of robust evidence, but because of its proximity to a scheme approved nearly a decade ago. That’s not planning — that’s assumption.
Yet under Paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework — the so-called “tilted balance” — the presumption in favour of development only applies if the site is demonstrably sustainable to begin with. That’s the first test. Only once that bar is met should any weighing of harms and benefits take place.
In this case, sustainability was simply presumed — without new data, without a real-world access assessment, and without public validation.
There is a dangerous fallacy in treating past approvals as proof of present-day suitability. The fact that something was permitted before does not make it right now — or even right at the time. Especially when:
No mechanisms exist to track the cumulative environmental and social impacts of multiple applications in the same area;
No environmental baseline was established;
And no Environmental Impact Assessment was ever triggered, due to the strategy of fragmenting development into smaller parcels.
Without these tools, any conclusion about “sustainability” is speculative at best — and misleading by design.
Paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework is supposed to tilt the balance in favour of sustainable development — but only if the harms do not “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh the benefits.
Yet with outline applications, there is no full picture of harm. The data simply doesn’t exist — not because it’s unavailable, but because it was never required. Despite Medstead undergoing cumulative expansion across multiple developments in recent years, no Environmental Impact Assessment was triggered. As a result, there is no environmental or infrastructure baseline against which this application — or any like it — can be properly assessed.
To make matters worse, the planning officer relied on consultee responses that were based on incomplete or uncoordinated data. In some cases, such as GP provision, reports appeared to assume available capacity without accounting for parallel applications already in the system. This distorts the evidence base, misleads the public, and places councillors in a position where their decisions are shaped by flawed or partial information. Residents are expected to object to a concept, not a plan. Councillors are expected to vote without full clarity. Developers, meanwhile, are given the benefit of the doubt — and a green light to proceed.
Several councillors admitted during the meeting that the site was unsustainable — but approved it anyway, citing pressure from officers and referencing past appeal losses in Four Marks. In some cases, they even implied that sustainability was irrelevant under Paragraph 11(d), or that proximity and superficial similarity to other developments justified approval.
This is a fundamental misreading of the policy.
Under the tilted balance, the presumption in favour of development only applies if the site is demonstrably sustainable in the first place. If it fails that test, the tilted balance should not be engaged at all. Sustainability is not a detail to be bypassed — it is the starting point.
Even more troubling is the reliance on other decisions — past approvals or Inspector rulings — as a stand-in for proper analysis. That approach undermines the very foundation of the planning system, which requires individual, case-by-case assessment. No two sites are identical in infrastructure, access, context, or environmental sensitivity. Applying someone else’s logic to this application is not planning — it’s deferral.
These errors raise serious questions about whether key EHDC stakeholders fully understand the legal and procedural framework they are tasked with upholding. And if they do understand it, but continue to misapply it, the implications are even more concerning.
It’s time to take back control — to prevent the creeping oligarchy of developers from draining our environment and resources unchecked. The system, as it stands, does not prevent them from doing so. And as the saying goes: where there’s a hole, there’s a leak.
The answer is clear: developers benefit. Not communities. Not infrastructure. Not biodiversity. This is not just about bad planning — it’s about the complete absence of local control. As I wrote recently to MP Damian Hinds:
“This is not a functioning regulatory framework. It is a corruptible environment that benefits developers at the expense of our natural resources, infrastructure, and the wellbeing of local communities.”
The country is facing a housing crisis — but that crisis will not be solved by repeating the mistakes that created it. And it certainly won’t be solved by handing private developers the freedom to build wherever they wish and profit as they please, without meaningful obligations to the public good.
There is one tool that East Hampshire District Council has consistently failed to explore: a local profit cap.
This is not a complex policy. It’s a simple mechanism that would allow councils to reclaim developer profit once it exceeds a reasonable threshold — with surplus funds redirected toward local infrastructure, affordable housing, biodiversity restoration, or public services.
But more importantly, a local profit cap would give authorities a genuine lever of control. It would allow planning decisions to be shaped around local needs — not developer margins — and give councils the power to influence how development happens, not just where.
Because if national housing targets are unlikely to change significantly, then we must change how we build — and that can only happen if local authorities are allowed to lead on quality, purpose, and long-term value.
Right now, that isn’t possible. Developers set the tone, the speed, and the standard — and they are incentivised to do so with short-term gain in mind. There is no economic structure in place to reward innovation, modern design, or optimal land use. Technologies and strategies that are standard in other countries — from energy-efficient homes to better density planning — are left off the table, because there’s no incentive to include them and no penalty for ignoring them.
A profit cap wouldn’t stop development. It would simply re-centre the public interest in a system that has drifted far from it. If EHDC were serious about reform, it would have acted already. But it hasn’t. And that silence speaks volumes.
This is not just a local issue. It is a national failure with deeply local consequences.
Until we put an end to fragmented, opaque approvals — and restore democratic control over how and where we build — we will continue to see decisions like this: rushed, unsupported, and quietly harmful.
Medstead is not disposable. Neither is the countryside that surrounds it. If our planning authorities can’t protect us, then we must find another way.
That process has already begun — through direct challenges to decision-makers, coordinated community organising, and the groundwork being laid for a Judicial Review.
One solution we put forward was the introduction of a local profit cap — a simple, practical mechanism that would limit excessive developer profit and allow local authorities to reclaim surplus gains for community infrastructure, affordable housing, and environmental restoration. It would offer councils a lever not just over how we build, but also where, and for whom.
I proposed this idea to East Hampshire District Council. But rather than treat it as an opportunity, they folded it into their habitual modus operandi — repeating a broken process even when handed the chance to rethink it.
So I took it to our MP, Damian Hinds, who in turn raised it with the Minister for Housing. In her formal response, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage confirmed that the proposal has been passed to her officials for further review — alongside broader reforms to Section 106 contributions and the National Planning Policy Framework.
It is now part of the national conversation. But change will only happen if we keep pushing — locally and nationally — with a clear message:
Communities are not obstacles. They are stakeholders.And they deserve a system that treats them as such.
If the current leadership cannot meet the targets they committed to — and refuses to engage with credible, community-led proposals for reform — then they must ask themselves whether they are still fit to lead. Leadership is not about surviving systems. It’s about challenging them when they fail.
East Hampshire District Council has been failing to meet its five-year housing land supply requirement for nearly a decade — a sustained failure that continues to weaken its ability to manage development and enforce planning policy. ↩︎
Approving yet another application in Medstead, under the excuse of the “tilted balance,” ignores all reason and responsibility. Environment and Infrastructure First — You Fools.
We, the Beechlands Road Community Group, formally call for the resignation of those responsible for the ongoing planning failures following the approval of the outline application for development in Medstead — a decision made against established policy and the clear objections of the local community.
This outcome represents not only a betrayal of public trust but a failure of governance. When local authorities disregard their own planning frameworks and the voices of residents, accountability must follow.
The tilted balance does not mean no balance. If decision-makers are unwilling or unable to uphold the principles of good planning, environmental protection, and fair community representation, then they must step aside.
Our community deserves leaders who will protect the values, character, and sustainability of our local area — not those who preside over its irreversible harm.
We, the Beechlands Road Community Group, respectfully call for both planning applications submitted by the developer Bargate/Vivid — which resulted in the Ashwood Estate and the more recent development just approved on 20 March 2025 — to be subject to a formal and transparent audit.
This request is not limited to verifying compliance with planning procedure as defined by East Hampshire District Council (EHDC), but seeks a deeper, independent review of the validity, reliability, and integrity of:
All data sources used to justify the developments
The methodologies employed by third-party consultants (e.g. traffic, drainage, biodiversity, infrastructure, and public service capacity assessments)
The consideration of cumulative impacts across both applications
The level and manner in which public consultation and objections were taken into account
We are increasingly concerned that the local planning process, when applied to developments of this scale, functions without sufficient external verification. Without robust independent review, the process becomes vulnerable to developer-led narratives, unchallenged assumptions, and data that is either incomplete, outdated, or methodologically flawed.
As a community that will bear the long-term consequences of these planning decisions, we ask that EHDC — or, if necessary, a higher authority — initiate or enable a transparent audit or third-party evaluation of both applications.
We believe this is the only way to restore public confidence in the planning process and to ensure that community voices, environmental integrity, and infrastructure capacity are given due weight in the face of speculative development pressure.
🎯 The Core Issue:
When a Local Planning Authority (LPA) fails to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply (5YHLS), it triggers Paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), activating what’s known as the tilted balance — a planning presumption in favour of sustainable development. This mechanism, designed as a safety net, has in practice become a back door for developer-led growth, overriding democratically established Local Plans and community opposition.
🔎 Accountability Questioned: In any normal professional setting, when an organisation fails to meet its core statutory obligations, there are consequences — restructuring, replacement, or resignation. Why is the situation different for LPAs? Their consistent inability to meet the 5YHLS threshold results in real-world consequences: rural overdevelopment, strained infrastructure, and the irreversible loss of natural landscapes.
📉 A System Built for Failure (and Exploitation): My subsequent research into the planning process has led me to conclude that the system is fundamentally flawed — and dangerously prone to misuse. It acts less like a regulatory safeguard and more like an incubator for misconduct.
Extensive development is being approved without robust Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), especially in developer-prioritised villages.
UK building standards, dictated largely by developers, fail to meet the quality and technological benchmarks seen across mainland Europe — even in projects marketed as “premium.”
Natural resources are being exploited inefficiently, not strategically.
Regulatory processes routinely lack accurate, validated data — including on essentials like GP surgery capacity, school places, and transport pressure.
📌 A Broken Loop: What should be a system of checks and balances often amounts to a rubber stamp, built on outdated datasets and under-resourced oversight. Communities are left scrambling to fight decisions that should have been blocked at the policy level.
💡 Our Position: Until these systemic failures are addressed, the only responsible course of action is to slow the approval pipeline and introduce a form of “profit cap” — a mechanism that limits the exploitation of loopholes by developers and prioritises long-term environmental, infrastructural, and social integrity.
🗣️ We, the Beechlands Road Community Group, call for accountability. If LPAs cannot fulfil their basic responsibilities, the public deserves better leadership. And if the tilted balance is used to approve applications like the one in Medstead — against all local logic — then resignations must follow.
🧱 Why This Matters:
It undermines local democracy, because local plans that took years to consult on and adopt are effectively overridden.
It encourages speculative applications in rural and protected areas.
It erodes public trust when residents feel that LPAs are not delivering on their responsibilities but continue without consequence.
Why Bargate Homes/Vivid makes me think of an episode of Law & Order SVU
The recording of the Planning Committee meeting held on Thursday, 20th March 2025 at 6:00 PM can be viewed online by following the ‘Watch Online‘ link provided in the meeting agenda.
In the rapidly expanding housing markets of Hampshire, two prominent developers, Metis Homes and Bargate Homes, have demonstrated a noteworthy pattern of activity that suggests a coordinated strategy to maximise market influence and resource efficiency, and profit.
This article delves into the shared developments, personnel movements, and geographical overlap that indicate a potential strategic alignment between these two developers, raising questions about the sustainability of their practices and the cumulative impact on local communities.
Concerns Over Sustainability and Cumulative Impact
While the coordinated strategy may benefit the developers in terms of market dominance, resource optimisation, and profit, it raises significant concerns about sustainability and the cumulative impact on local communities. . If it is designed as piecemeal developments, where large projects are segmented into smaller ones between connected market players to avoid triggering comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), it undermines the intent of environmental regulations. This tactic results in inadequate scrutiny of the overall environmental and infrastructural impact, leading to strained local resources and diminished quality of life for residents.
Community Opposition and Call for Comprehensive EIAs
Local residents have voiced substantial concerns over the rapid development and its impact on their communities. The lack of comprehensive planning and environmental assessments exacerbates these concerns, leaving residents feeling marginalised and unprotected. There is a growing demand for comprehensive EIAs and better planning practices that consider the overall impact of these developments on the community and the environment.
Financial Incentives and Section 106 Contributions
A significant concern is that by avoiding comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), developers might be minimising their contributions under Section 106 agreements. These agreements typically require developers to contribute to local infrastructure improvements as part of their planning consent. Without thorough EIAs, the full extent of infrastructure needs and environmental impacts may not be properly assessed, leading to insufficient developer contributions. This can adversely impact the quality of life for residents and strain local services and amenities.
Paired Developments in Key Locations
Over the past decade, Metis Homes and Bargate Homes have developed several residential projects in the same geographical regions, particularly focusing on areas like Eastleigh, Winchester, Southampton, and Four Marks & Medstead ward. The simultaneous development activities in these regions suggest a synchronised effort to capitalise on the housing demand.
The Green, Four Marks (2013), The Shrave (2015), Chapel Fields (2018), Hawthorn Gardens (2020)
Riverwood (2016) Boyneswood Lane (2017)
Shared Personnel and Close Proximity
The strategic coordination is further evidenced by shared personnel and close office locations. Notably, Sally Frampton, an Advance Sales Manager at Metis Homes, previously held a similar role at Bargate Homes. Similarly, Andy Cherry, a Site Manager at Metis Homes, worked for Bargate Homes for about 14 years. These personnel movements suggest a transfer of knowledge and possibly coordinated efforts between the two companies.
Moreover, Metis Homes and Bargate Homes operate from offices located in close physical proximity, sharing the same postcode. This proximity facilitates regular communication and potential strategic collaboration, enhancing operational efficiency, market influence, and profitability.
Current Developments and Implications
At the time of writing this article, both developers have submitted planning applications in the same ward, which consists of the villages of Medstead and Four Marks. The planning applications are:
Metis Homes: Planning application 30800/013.
Bargate Homes: Planning application 55318/001.
These concurrent applications further emphasise the potential coordinated strategy to develop in these regions, likely aiming to maximise their market share and influence while potentially avoiding the comprehensive assessments required for sustainable development.
Conclusion
The pattern of paired developments, shared personnel, and close office proximity strongly suggests a coordinated development strategy between Metis Homes and Bargate Homes. This strategy appears aimed at maximising market influence, operational efficiency, and profitability in key geographical regions such as Eastleigh, Winchester, Southampton, and Four Marks. Despite the lack of a direct corporate link, these factors collectively indicate a strategic alignment that benefits both developers. It is crucial for local authorities to ensure thorough environmental assessments and sustainable development practices to protect the well-being of the community and the environment.
The Bargate Feedback Website mentions opportunities for public feedback and encourages residents to participate in the consultation process.
However, the effectiveness of this engagement depends on how well residents are informed about the full context. They should ensure that all relevant information is provided so that residents can give informed feedback.
Both the feedback invite letter and the website are clear cases of omission in disclosure, as they fail to mention that the proposed development is outside the settlement boundaries and not included in the local development plan. This lack of transparency is significant because it does not provide residents with the full context needed to assess the proposal.
They fail to inform residents that the application might be relying on the “tilted balance” principle, which is a critical aspect of the planning process. This principle changes the default position in favour of granting planning permission and shifts the burden of evidence for objections to successfully oppose the proposal.
Additionally, the format of their expansion is designed so that none of the piecemeal phases of their masterplan meet the 150-plus dwelling threshold, thus avoiding mandatory EIA requirements. This highlights a loophole in the EHDC planning application process, which is affected by a “one size fits all” fallacy and lacks effective mechanisms to address cumulative impact situations. This approach fits the characteristics of a creeping strategy, involving a methodical and incremental approach to achieving long-term objectives without attracting significant opposition or attention.
This is like taking multiple blood donations exceeding the safe limit for a child donor, but doing so without medical (EIA) supervision. Without an EIA, there is no proper care to understand the impact of these piecemeal developments on the community. Without data collation, the effects observed by residents can be easily disregarded as there is no evidence. This likely saves costs for the developers but comes at the expense of comprehensive oversight and the community’s well-being.
Think about allocating land for housing development as if it were a blood donation (Blood Donation = Allocating Land for Housing Development).
💡 NO land that is not included in the Local Development Plan
MAXIMUM amount of blood donation per person – 1 pint every 56 days
MAXIMUM SIZE is defined by its relative insignificance to the donor:
💡NO significant risk to the environment that cannot be adequately mitigated (Environmental Impact)
💡 NO significant strain on local infrastructure such as roads, schools, healthcare facilities, and utilities (Infrastructure Capacity)
💡 NO significant alteration to the character of the village, e.g., overcrowding (Community Impact)
💡 NO significant risk to public health and safety, such as increased pollution, noise, or hazards (Health and Safety)
etc;
Exceptions in Standard Protocol for Safe Donation
Blood Donation
Land ‘Donation’
A child can donate blood to a sibling, based on a determination that the impact on the donor’s wellbeing will not be jeopardised and any side effects can be effectively mitigated.
Land that is NOT within the village Settlement Boundaries and is NOT included in the Local Development Plan can be ‘donated’ in case of significant benefits, on the basis that the impact can be effectively contained by mitigation measures. (Economic, Social or Environmental Benefits Benefits)
Or, if relevant granting permission policies are out-of-date, such as an EHDC Local Development Plan that does not reflect recent development needs.
The default acceptance of any donors in such situations is to minimise the issue at hand. Thus, default acceptance replaces conditional acceptances for blood donation, and it is only “turned off” if it is proven that the adverse impacts of donation would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
The default permission settings can only be “turned off” if it is proven that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
These exceptions are usually carefully managed to balance the urgent need for blood with the safety of the donors and recipients.
This assessment is made against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. Thus, it is vital that the case-by-case permission process is carefully managed by a fully functional planning application mechanism, capable of providing accurate determinations.
Donated blood should be from healthy donors who are free from certain diseases and have appropriate haemoglobin levels.
The site must be suitable for housing development, having access to amenities and infrastructure capacity, while considering the maintenance of ecological balance and supporting biodiversity conservation.
Cumulative amount of donations and type of donor
Blood Donation
Land ‘Donation’
Donating over 1 pint of blood every 56 days should require medical supervision. It is understood that donating above that amount has significant effects on the donor.
General principles state that projects involving the construction of more than 150 dwellings require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as they have significant effects on the locality.
Donating two times 0.51 pint of blood during that period should also trigger the need for medical supervision.
Constructing two sets of 76 dwellings in the same locality should also trigger an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
The significance yet differs based on the donor type; for instance, a person weighing 30 kg should only donate 210-315 ml.
Similarly, the significance varies for rural settings.
To effectively force a council to repeat the public consultation on a Local Development Plan (LDP) before and after the draft is published, you would need to engage with the process actively and understand the statutory requirements. Here are the key steps and considerations:
Steps to Request Repetition of Public Consultation
The public consultation process for local development plans is regulated by laws and guidelines, such as the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Localism Act 2011. These regulations outline the stages and requirements for public consultations.
Lack of Adequate Consultation: If the initial consultation did not reach a significant portion of the affected community or was not sufficiently publicised, this can be grounds for a repeated consultation.
New Significant Information: If new information or changes arise after the initial consultation, which could significantly affect the plan, a further consultation might be warranted.
Legal Non-Compliance: If the consultation process did not comply with legal requirements or procedural rules, you can argue for its repetition.
Provide Feedback: Submit detailed feedback during consultation periods, highlighting any deficiencies in the process or new information that justifies another round of consultation.
Organise Community Support: Mobilize local residents and community groups to submit similar feedback, emphasising the need for adequate and comprehensive consultation.
The land must be deliverable within the five-year period. This means that there should be a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within this timeframe.
Evidence of deliverability might include site assessments, planning status, and infrastructure availability.
Infrastructure:
While the exact requirements can vary, generally, for a site to be considered deliverable, it should have access to essential infrastructure, or there should be a clear and feasible plan for providing it.
This includes:
- Access Roads: There should be suitable access to the site for construction and future residents. If an access road is not already in place, there should be a clear plan and commitment to building one.
- Utilities (Media): The site should have, or be capable of having, essential utilities such as water, electricity, gas, and sewage systems. If these services are not yet connected, there should be clear, feasible plans and commitments to provide them.
While the local planning authority ensures that sites included in the Proven Five Year Housing Land Supply are deliverable and have the potential for development, the actual provision of infrastructure such as roads and utilities is typically the responsibility of the developer, often secured through planning conditions or obligations.
To ensure that infrastructure is provided, local planning authorities can use planning obligations, also known as Section 106 agreements, to require developers to contribute to or directly provide necessary infrastructure as part of their planning permission. These agreements can stipulate that certain infrastructure must be in place before development can proceed or before any homes can be occupied.
The site must be suitable for housing development. This involves compliance with local planning policies and alignment with the broader strategic housing objectives.
Suitability also takes into account environmental constraints, access to amenities, and infrastructure capacity.
The development on the site must be achievable within the five-year period. This includes financial viability and the likelihood of obtaining necessary planning permissions.
Achievability also considers market demand and the developer’s track record in delivering similar projects.
The development must align with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), including considerations for sustainable development and meeting local housing needs.
The proposal should support the objectives of the NPPF, such as promoting sustainable transport, high-quality design, and climate change mitigation.
The planning approval should consider the impact on the local community and environment. This includes preserving the character of the area, protecting green spaces, and mitigating adverse effects.
Public consultation and environmental assessments are critical components in evaluating these impacts.
Conclusion
For a planning approval to count towards the proven Five Year Housing Land Supply, it must demonstrate that the land is deliverable, suitable, available, achievable, and compliant with NPPF guidelines. Ensuring these criteria are met is essential for maintaining a robust and effective housing supply strategy that balances development needs with community and environmental considerations.
When opposing a development, particularly one that is outside the settlement boundary, not included in the local development plan, or being pushed under Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), it’s crucial to focus on specific objectives.
Development Outside the Settlement Boundary
Objective: Emphasise the importance of preserving the designated settlement boundaries to prevent urban sprawl and protect rural areas.
Highlight that the development contravenes established local policies that define and protect settlement boundaries.
Reference specific policies within the local development plan that aim to restrict development outside these boundaries to protect the character and integrity of the village.
Point out that existing infrastructure (roads, schools, healthcare facilities) is not equipped to handle additional development outside the settlement boundary.
Stress that such developments could lead to overburdened services and reduced quality of life for current residents.
Emphasise the potential environmental impacts, such as loss of wildlife habitats, increased flood risk, and pollution.
Use environmental assessments or local biodiversity records to support these claims.
Development Not Included in the Local Development Plan
Objective: Argue that the development should adhere to the current local development plan, which has been designed to meet community needs sustainably.
Highlight how the development may not align with the sustainability principles embedded in the local plan.
Provide specific examples of how the development could fail to meet sustainability criteria, such as energy efficiency, transportation links, or resource management.
Question the accuracy of the reported shortfall in the five-year housing supply. This shortfall’s exact accuracy dictates the benefit of the proposed development and its value in determining whether the adverse impact on the village outweighs it.
Reference reports or studies, including those submitted by the developer, that question or highlight discrepancies in the housing supply figures.
Highlight any conflicts between the proposed development and specific policies within the NPPF.
Argue that even under Paragraph 11, the development should not proceed if it contravenes key NPPF policies, such as protecting the Green Belt, promoting sustainable transport, or preserving heritage assets.
Conclusion
Opposing a development effectively requires a strategic approach, focusing on clear, evidence-based objections tailored to the specific context:
Outside Settlement Boundary: Emphasise preservation of rural character, infrastructure strain, and environmental impact.
Not in Local Development Plan: Highlight lack of strategic planning, precedent setting, community consultation, and sustainability issues.
Under Paragraph 11: Argue unsustainable development, challenge housing supply claims, demonstrate adverse impacts, and highlight conflicts with NPPF policies, and question the accuracy of the reported shortfall in the five-year housing supply.
By addressing these objectives, you can build a compelling case against the proposed development.
