Appeal dismissed: 150 homes at Deham’s Corner, Horton Heath
This is an early and instructive application of the new NPPF test that housing outside settlements, where there is no five-year supply, must be “physically well-related to an existing settlement” in order to come within the exceptions in Policy S5.
The parties agreed the Council’s supply lay between 2.36 and 3.69 years. The Inspector gave little weight to the breach of the spatial strategy. He treated both the housing and the 40% affordable housing as substantial benefits. The appeal was still dismissed.
“Physically well-related” is not just about proximity
The Inspector carried his findings on sustainable transport into the S5 test. He found the site separated from Horton Heath by woodland and said it “very much feels like a field in the open countryside, which is what it is”. He contrasted it with the neighbouring One Horton Heath allocation, which physically abuts the built-up area and is planned with a school, a local centre and a cycle track.
What “genuine choice” means in reality
The appellant was right that not every resident has to use sustainable modes. But the measures had to persuade “a reasonable proportion of residents” to walk, wheel, cycle or take the bus for their regular journeys. That meant people who might be persuaded, not the “die-hards” who would walk or drive whatever the circumstances. The test was then applied route by route, with the car as the comparator:
- Walking: nearly all facilities were over 2km away, which is the CIHT preferred maximum. The only facility within 800m was a pub. The footways were narrow and the road busy with HGVs. The Inspector doubted that many parents would let children walk it.
- Cycling: the new 3m path stopped at Blind Lane, so cyclists would be back on the carriageway. The Bubb Lane route was generally under 1.8m wide, against the 3m in LTN 1/20, beside a 50mph road.
- Bus: a 1 hour 45 minute gap in the morning peak, between 07:14 and 09:59.
- Mobility hub: it would “only really be as good as these alternative sustainable transport routes themselves”.
- CIL tests: an offer limited to what met them did not mean the policy test was met.
The landscape evidence
The appellant’s LVIA assessed only the two large landscape character areas, not the site itself or the adjacent ancient woodland and SINC. It also assessed visual receptors in groups of viewpoints, not receptor by receptor. The Inspector found it “unusual to simply omit to assess the effect of a development on the site itself”. He preferred the Council’s more granular evidence on landscape and visual effects.
No fallback
S5(4) was not met. There were no exceptional circumstances, and the benefits did not “substantially outweigh” the harms.
This is one Inspector’s decision and not binding. But it suggests “well-related” will be read functionally as well as physically, and that promoters of sites away from settlement edges will need to prove connectivity with evidence.
Josef Cannon KC appeared for Eastleigh Borough Council alongside the Council’s witness team: Tim Dyer (landscape, Eastleigh BC), Chris Hirst (transport, Hampshire County Council) and Gary Osmond (planning).
To read the full judgment, follow the link here.
