A GOVERNMENT appeal inspector appears, once again, to have driven a coach and horses through local planning policy to allow yet more development in South Medstead and Four Marks on the premise that a few more houses and the loss of employment land is acceptable in an area that many would argue has already seen unprecedented growth but without the supporting infrastructure.

And it is a decision that will leave East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) out of pocket as it is ordered to pick up some of the associated appeal costs.

Despite strong objection from residents and Medstead and adjoining Four Marks parish councils, and having been turned down by EHDC planners, appeal inspector Richard Aston has granted permission for the construction of nine new dwellings on an area of “waste land” previously used for parking at Mansfield Business Park on Station Approach, Medstead.

The application, by Reading-based developer Country Estates Hampshire, was turned down by EHDC last April on grounds that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the site was no longer suitable for employment use.

Furthermore, it was felt that the siting of the proposed residential development would be incompatible with the adjoining commercial use in terms of safety, noise and disturbance to future householders.

Plus, there was concern that the development would be isolated from the main services and facilities at Four Marks and Medstead, minimising opportunities for residents to integrate with the community.

As a result, the proposal was felt to be contrary to EHDC’s local plan and to the National Planning Policy Framework.

These objections reflected those of residents and of both parish councils who further pointed out that the proposal would not be in accordance with the emerging Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan.

At the hearing, Mr Aston flagged up the main issues – whether the loss of employment land would be acceptable; whether it was a suitable site for housing, with regard to compatibility of surrounding land uses, noise and general disturbance, proximity to services and the ability of future occupiers to integrate into the community; and the effect on highway safety.

On the first count, while this, according to Mr Aston, “was no longer a matter of dispute between the principal parties” (the developer and EHDC), local ward members, the parish councils and the neighbourhood plan steering group still maintained a number of objections.

Nonetheless, following the appeal hearing on December 6, Mr Aston allowed the development of the site, stating that, in his opinion, the applicant had marketed the site over a period of more than three-and-a-half years to no avail nor, after 20 years ownership, would it be viable to sell the site freehold.

In examining local planning policy, Mr Aston flagged up that policy three “allows for loss of employment land where it can be demonstrated its continued use is no longer viable and that there is no demand following appropriate marketing, as is the case here”.

And he added: “This is a supportive policy that seeks to promote the rural economy and healthy communities and does not necessarily preclude other uses such as residential.”

He pointed out that further to planning permission on the land in 1991 for office space in seven blocks, just four had been built and three had remained barren. The proposed development would result in the loss of land for two of these buildings, with room still for one more. Referring to the housing requirement for the period from 2011 to 2028 which, for the Four Marks and south Medstead area had been set at 175 dwellings – a figure already far exceeded but which, stressed Mr Aston, was “a minimum requirement” – and with the apparent difficulty faced by the applicant in marketing the site for employment use, he was mindful of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires that consideration be given to the relative need for different uses to support sustainable communities.

Furthermore, the Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan, he said, supported opportunities to rebuild a sense of community spirit through various planned provisions, including the development of a community hub at the railway station, which includes the appeal site.

EHDC policy defines the Four Marks and south Medstead area as a “small local service centre” which had “more than a limited range of services and was capable of accepting some new development”.

With this in mind the site, said Mr Aston, did not appear to be an allocated employment site and that use for housing would achieve the sustainable pattern of development advocated in the district plan. Moreover, the proposal would represent “a very minor increase in growth” within the settlement policy boundary and “would not alter the character of the settlement in any fundamental way”.

And he said there was no reason why the resultant population, even in addition to developments already permitted, couldn’t be absorbed successfully into Four Marks, supporting sustainability within the community. Nor why the development wouldn’t fit in an area which didn’t have a particularly strong commercial or industrial character, but one with an established residential element bringing tranquility and seclusion.

He did not believe noise from the neighbouring employment area nor the Mid Hants Railway would be an issue. And he was satisfied that the junction of Station Approach with Lymington Bottom was acceptable, the road was “lightly trafficked”, and while other sites had been developed locally the scale of vehicular movement associated with this development would be unlikely to cause additional harm to highway safety.

In allowing the appeal, Mr Aston awarded costs against EHDC relating to the preparation and submission of evidence by Country Estates Hampshire relating to the first reason for refusal regarding employment use.