The planning application documents provided on this website are sourced from the East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) and are available for public access. Personal and sensitive information has been redacted by EHDC to comply with the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). For the most current and official documents, please refer to the EHDC planning portal. The information provided here is for informational purposes only.
Category: References
REF-198213-W7Y7 — URGENT: Regarding the submission of objections to applications 55318/001 and 27000/005
Comment on a planning application
East Hampshire land availability assessment 2023
View the interactive map of land listed by EHDC as potential development sites
EHDC EMAIL BULLETINS – 2022-06-17: EHDC to consult again on Local Plan following ‘brutal’ housing targets
Land Registry — Land west of Beechlands Road, Medstead – Official copy of the register title
EHDC – REQUEST FOR SCREENING OPINION – RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 60 DWELLINGS – Land north of, Boyneswood Lane, Medstead, Alton – Officer Report
⚖️ Was the EIA screening decision in 2013 (60 dwellings) lawful?
✅ Legally it was a Schedule 2 development (Category 10(b))
The site was:
- 3.3 ha, with a 2 ha developable area
- Not in a sensitive area (as per 2011 Regs at the time)
- Exceeded the 0.5 ha threshold → Screening was mandatory
👉 EHDC did carry out a screening opinion — ✅ this part is procedurally lawful
🔎 Did EHDC properly consider environmental effects?
They did consult statutory bodies:
- Environment Agency
- HCC Highways
- Natural England
- Thames Water
- Environmental Health
📌 Several consultees noted risks:
- Flooding potential and drainage (EA + EHDC drainage)
- Noise, air quality (Environmental Health)
- Highways concern about cumulative impact (HCC Highways)
- Medstead PC specifically objected due to cumulative development pressure and loss of open space/woodland
But…
⚠️ Critical Weakness in the Screening Decision: Cumulative Impact Was Dismissed
EHDC acknowledges that:
“The village has experienced rapid development pressures in the preceding short-term of 5–10 years but not on a scale likely to cause significant social issues…”
And:
“A full TA will be required… but crucially for the purposes of the 2011 Regulations only committed developments can be considered in screening.”
👉 This is the legal weak point:
❌ EHDC’s interpretation of “committed development” was narrow and conservative
- They dismissed wider growth because the other SHLAA sites weren’t yet consented
- They ignored local-scale saturation, even though HCC Highways and the Parish Council both warned about cumulative pressure
💣 Conclusion: Was the 2013 screening opinion lawful?
- Procedurally: Yes — screening was carried out, consultees were asked.
- Substantively: ⚠️ Weak, potentially vulnerable to challenge today:
- Because EHDC relied too heavily on the absence of “committed” status for nearby schemes, rather than assessing the real risk of cumulative impact
- They did not apply Schedule 3 criteria dynamically, as later clarified in case law like Loader v Rother DC [2015]