In March 2025, East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) granted planning permission for 62 dwellings on land west of Beechlands Road, Medstead, without conducting a legally required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The site is part of a larger, strategically promoted expansion across South Medstead, delivered in discrete phases by the same promoter since at least 2013. However, EHDC treated the 2024 application in isolation and relied on an expired screening opinion issued to a different developer for a different scheme.
This constitutes unlawful “salami-slicing” — the artificial division of a larger development into multiple smaller applications to avoid environmental scrutiny — contrary to the EIA Regulations 2017 and established case law.
📘 Why Intent Matters Under EIA Law – And How It Applies to Medstead
1. EIA Obligations Arise from Projects, Not Just Applications
The duty to carry out EIA screening arises not only from formal planning applications, but from the existence and intent of a project. The EIA Regulations 2017 define a “project” broadly to include construction or land interventions — whether or not a planning application has been submitted.
Regulation 2(1), EIA Regs 2017:
“Project” means the execution of construction works or other installations or schemes… or other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape.”
This includes:
- Phased or parcel-based delivery,
- Preliminary actions like EIA screenings,
- Projects where future expansion is foreseeable or promoted.
📘 R (Catt) v Brighton & Hove CC [2007]:
Screening must consider “whether what is proposed is part of a larger project, even if that project has not yet been formally applied for.”
📘 European Commission v Ireland (C-392/96):
Artificially splitting a project to avoid EIA is unlawful; intent and functional reality must be assessed.
2. The Medstead Expansion Was Strategically Planned Since 2013
The South Medstead expansion traces back to 2013, when:
- Foreman Homes submitted an EIA screening request for 144 dwellings west of Beechlands Road;
- Bargate Homes and VIVID simultaneously brought forward the Ashwood estate (60 dwellings) on Boyneswood Lane.
Though no application followed Foreman’s screening, the proposal — 144 dwellings on 4 hectares in a rural village — was unusually dense. This raises a reasonable inference that the proposal may have been deliberately inflated in scale, not for delivery, but to pre-test environmental thresholds and create a benchmark that would make future smaller applications appear more modest.
Subsequent events confirm this trajectory:
- Bargate acquired the Foreman site in 2018 (title SH12998);
- In 2024, Bargate submitted a 62-dwelling application — relying on the expired 2014 screening opinion issued to Foreman.
⚠️ This sequence demonstrates that the 2013 screening was not speculative, but the starting point of a phased expansion strategy now executed and promoted by Bargate.
3. Foreman, Bargate, and VIVID Acted in Strategic Alignment
- VIVID co-developed Ashwood with Bargate;
- Foreman and VIVID partnered on later projects at Selborne Park (Alton) and Eastleigh (DC/24/98259).
These overlapping partnerships across schemes and districts demonstrate a pattern of coordinated delivery behaviour. While not a formal joint venture, they reflect operational alignment that is directly relevant to cumulative EIA duties.
📘 Baker v Bath [2009]:
What matters is the substance of the development, not whether different entities submitted the applications.
4. EHDC Failed to Treat 2013 Screening and Ashwood Together
In 2013, EHDC:
- Screened Ashwood (60 dwellings) – no EIA required;
- Screened Foreman’s 144-dwelling proposal – also no EIA required.
Yet EHDC did not issue a joint screening opinion or require a cumulative impact assessment, despite:
- Both proposals arising at the same time;
- Sites being adjacent along the rural dead-end corridor of Beechlands Road, where development pressure concentrates along a single constrained access route;
- Shared access via Beechlands Road;
- Links between the delivery parties.
📘 EIA Regs 2017, Schedule 3, para 1(b):
Authorities must assess “cumulation with other existing and/or approved development.”
📘 Strategic Framework – South Medstead Expansion Project (Bargate-led Promotion)
In 2019, Bargate Homes published a brochure promoting a 650-home expansion vision for South Medstead. This included:
- The Beechlands site,
- Other linked parcels including those along Beechlands Road (but not Ashwood, which was already built).
✅ This 2019 strategic publication formalised the project and showed that the 2024 application was part of an ongoing programme — not a standalone scheme.
🗂️ Coordinated Parcel Components – Development Timeline
🔹 Component A – Ashwood Estate (Boyneswood Lane)
- 2013–2014: EIA screening and planning permission (60 units)
- 2018: Completed by Bargate/VIVID
✅ Functioned as the delivery and infrastructure foundation for subsequent phases.
🔹 Component B – Beechlands Road (Foreman → Bargate)
- 2013: Foreman screening (144 units – no application followed)
- 2018: Bargate acquired the land
- 2024: 62-dwelling application submitted by Bargate, relying on expired screening
✅ EHDC failed to reassess the site under 2017 EIA rules despite changed applicant, scale, and context.
⚖️ Summary of Legal Failures
The planning authority’s approach fell short of legal requirements in four critical respects:
1. Improper Reuse of Expired Screening Opinion
- The 2013 screening expired in 2017.
- It was issued to a different applicant and governed by outdated law.
📘 R (Loader) v Rother DC [2015] – Material changes require a fresh screening.
2. Failure to Assess Cumulative Impact
- EHDC treated the 2024 application as isolated.
- It failed to account for cumulative impacts from Ashwood, Beechlands, and foreseeable parcels.
📘 R (Burridge) v Breckland DC [2013]
3. Unlawful Project Fragmentation
- Bargate promoted the development in multiple phases.
- The schemes share access, phasing, and developers.
📘 European Commission v Ireland (C-392/96) – Unlawful salami-slicing.
4. Foreseeable Growth Ignored
- The 2019 brochure and land ownership made further development foreseeable.
- EHDC failed to treat it as such in screening.
📘 R (Catt) v Brighton [2007]
🧾 Relief Sought
Therefore, in light of the factual chronology, legal framework, and the planning authority’s failure to comply with its screening duties, we believe we are entitled to respectfully request that the Court.
- Quash the planning permission granted in March 2025 for 62 dwellings on land west of Beechlands Road;
- Declare that East Hampshire District Council acted unlawfully by failing to carry out a compliant Environmental Impact Assessment screening;
- Order EHDC to undertake a fresh and legally sound EIA screening that fully accounts for:
– The completed Ashwood development;
– The currently proposed Beechlands scheme;
– All other foreseeable or promoted parcels forming part of the South Medstead expansion corridor.
📂 Core Evidence
| Document | Description / Relevance |
|---|---|
| 2013 EIA Screening – Foreman Homes | Screening opinion for 144 dwellings on Beechlands Road. No application followed. Later reused by Bargate in 2024. |
| 2013–2014 EIA Screening + Approval – Ashwood Estate | Adjacent 60-dwelling scheme promoted by Bargate/VIVID. Screened separately, no EIA required. Built in 2018. |
| Land Registry Title SH12998 | Confirms Bargate’s legal control of the Beechlands site as of 2018. |
| 2019 Bargate Brochure – South Medstead Vision | Shows 650-home coordinated expansion plan including Beechlands and other linked parcels. |
| 2024 Bargate Application Documents | Application for 62 dwellings on Beechlands site, relying on expired Foreman screening. |
| Planning Application DC/24/98259 (Eastleigh) | Foreman and VIVID co-application, evidencing repeated collaboration beyond Medstead. |
| Selborne Park (Alton) Scheme | Current collaboration between Foreman and VIVID, reinforcing active regional delivery coordination. |