Prestige Car Service, 113A London Road, Horndean, WATERLOOVILLE, PO8 0BJ

Prestige Car Service, 113A London Road, Horndean, WATERLOOVILLE, PO8 0BJ — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 November 2021 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14th January 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/M1710/W/21/3273680 113A London Road, Horndean, Waterlooville, Hampshire PO8 0BJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Oliver Stoner against the decision of East Hampshire District Council. • The application Ref 58451/002, dated 24 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 23 December 2020. • The development proposed is for the provision of 2 additional parking spaces. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. I note that the Council refer to the proposal as being retrospective in nature and whilst I accept that the proposed grasscrete surface has not been laid down in the area of the proposed 2no parking spaces, nonetheless it is quite clear from the photographic evidence before me, that until fairly recently the land in question was heavily vegetated, forming the end of a hedgerow that runs along the north eastern side of Down Road. Since then some form of aggregate material has been laid down on the appeal site.

Prestige Car Service, 113A London Road, Horndean, WATERLOOVILLE, PO8 0BJ — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision I have determined the appeal on this basis, although I have omitted reference to the term ‘retrospective’ due to the fact that whilst it may be so in part, it does not go to the heart of the development proposal itself; and it still falls to me to assess it on its own merits. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area; and the effect upon a Public Right of Way. Reasons Character and Appearance 4. The appeal site relates to a landscaping strip on the edge of an industrial estate adjacent to Down Road, a private track along which runs Horndean Footpath 50. 5. The land in question is in an elevated position above the car park which serves a car service centre, separated by a retaining wall upon which metal railings are located.

Prestige Car Service, 113A London Road, Horndean, WATERLOOVILLE, PO8 0BJ — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/21/3273680 6. Whilst being adjacent to an established commercial area, the overall character of the wider locality is quite ‘urban fringe’, constituting a mix of uses and types of development. Nonetheless the site in question falls adjacent (to the south east of) a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) accessed and centred along Lith Lane that runs off of Down Road and which is verdant in character. 7. The appellant makes reference to the area of land that the proposed parking spaces would occupy being within the boundary of their site, however that does not appear to be the case from the HM Land Registry Plan appended to the Parish Council’s representations on the appeal. I note the letters of 13 January 1998 and 21 March 1998 regarding soft landscaping, however these do not prove ownership either. Notwithstanding this, the logical location for the settlement development boundary would have been along the line of the aforementioned retaining wall and railings, as denoted by the black line on the Council’s large scale (1:500) Horndean Settlement Boundary extract.

Prestige Car Service, 113A London Road, Horndean, WATERLOOVILLE, PO8 0BJ — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Indeed, prior to the removal of the vegetation, the appeal site was viewed as a form of green boundary treatment that flowed seamlessly and in line with the hedgerow due north of it, marking a transition between urban development and the countryside. However, ultimately planning permission goes with the land to which it relates and it is not uncommon for settlement boundaries to cut across areas within the same ownership, whereby part of a property falls within and part falls without. 8. Reference to the accuracy of the Ordnance Survey plan is noted, however I respectfully suggest that a width of approximately 5m would be accurate, taking into account the aforementioned hedgerow and the strip of land of which the appeal site forms part. Whilst I acknowledge that the use of perforated grass block pavers would render the site as more green in appearance than is currently the case, nonetheless that is no substitute for mature planting as previously existed and would still appear as an engineered solution.

Prestige Car Service, 113A London Road, Horndean, WATERLOOVILLE, PO8 0BJ — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision I note the reference within the Council’s Officer report to the land being agricultural/verge; quite clearly it is not the former, but nonetheless is on the edge of open countryside for the purposes of the application of development plan policy. 9. I accept that there is a restricted amount of parking available within the locality, however as a matter of principle, Policy CP19 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy adopted June 2014 (JCS) stipulates that the approach to sustainable development in the countryside, defined as the area outside settlement policy boundaries, is to operate a policy of general restraint in order to protect the countryside for its own sake. The only development allowed in the countryside will be that with a genuine and proven need for a countryside location, such as that necessary for farming, forestry, or other rural enterprises. 10. Therefore I consider that the development is unacceptable in policy terms and no material considerations have been advanced that outweigh not only this policy harm, but also the harm that the proposal would have upon the character and appearance of the area. 11.

Prestige Car Service, 113A London Road, Horndean, WATERLOOVILLE, PO8 0BJ — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision I therefore find the proposal contrary to JCS policy CP19, in addition to JCS policies CP20 and CP29 which require the special characteristics of the District’s 2

Prestige Car Service, 113A London Road, Horndean, WATERLOOVILLE, PO8 0BJ — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision I therefore find the proposal contrary to JCS policy CP19, in addition to JCS policies CP20 and CP29 which require the special characteristics of the District’s 2 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/21/3273680 natural environment to be conserved and enhanced, including protecting and enhancing settlements in the wider landscape, land at the urban edge and green corridors /infrastructure extending into settlements, whilst protecting and enhancing natural features such as trees, woodlands and hedgerows. Public Rights of Way 12. Horndean Footpath 50 runs along Down Road and notwithstanding the fact that Hampshire County Council as Local Highway Authority did not object to the proposal, they referred the Local Planning Authority to the Hampshire Countryside Service who did object to the scheme. 13. Whilst it is apparent that there is no defined width of the Public Right of Way, logic would dictate that it follows the broad alignment of the Down Road track itself; indeed if the hedgerow had not been removed, walkers would have been guided along the western side of it as they do further north, and would not have walked along the appeal site itself.

Prestige Car Service, 113A London Road, Horndean, WATERLOOVILLE, PO8 0BJ — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision I acknowledge that in manoeuvring into and out of the proposed parking spaces it could give rise to an opportunity for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians, however in reality that would not be materially different to potential conflicts between the latter and vehicles driving to and from properties located further along Down Road. 14. Therefore whilst the proposal would not enhance the Public Right of Way, with vehicles parked off of the Down Road track, I consider that aside from occasional manoeuvring of vehicles, the footpath would not be unduly disrupted by the proposed development. 15. I note the Countryside Services’ concerns with regard to whether any legal rights of access exist for vehicles over the footpath, but that is not a determining factor in this appeal. I therefore find that there would be no conflict between the proposal and Policy T4 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (2006) which states that development will not be permitted where it adversely affects the amenity and users of footpaths or where the Rights of Way network is disrupted and no equally attractive, safe and convenient satisfactory remedial measures, such as re-routing can be undertaken. 16.

Prestige Car Service, 113A London Road, Horndean, WATERLOOVILLE, PO8 0BJ — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Notwithstanding the fact that I have found in favour of the appellant on this issue, the harm as a matter of principle and upon the character and appearance of the countryside is such that I find the proposal unacceptable. Conclusion 17. Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed.

Prestige Car Service, 113A London Road, Horndean, WATERLOOVILLE, PO8 0BJ — East Hampshire District Council — C J Tivey INSPECTOR 3