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- Improper reliance on outdated precedent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 – Misuse of precedent
⚖️ 2. Irrationality – Failure to assess present-day conditions
⚖️ 3. Procedural Impropriety – Failure to exercise independent planning judgment
⚖️ 1. Procedural Impropriety – Improper Officer Influence
⚖️ 2. Misdirection – Substituting Legal Advice for Planning Judgment
⚖️ 1. Procedural Unfairness – Misinformation Prior to Statutory Consultation
⚖️ 2. Confusion and Imbalance – Closed-Loop Feedback
⚖️ 3. Procedural Impropriety – Council’s Duty to Safeguard Public Participation
⚖️ 1. Procedural Unfairness – Absence of Meaningful Public Guidance
⚖️ 2. Disproportionate Impact on Digitally Excluded and Vulnerable Residents
⚖️ 3. Failure to Facilitate Transparent, Accessible Engagement
⚖️ 4. Incomplete or Misleading Planning Portal Guidance
⚖️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