Goddards Farm planning appeal decision – application 18/03486/OUT - 24th September 2019

User Rating:  / 0

Below you will find a copy of a letter sent to Cllr. Nick Robinson (Ward Councillor for Bramley and Sherfield, Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council), All Members of the Development Control Committee, Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council, Cllr Mark Ruffell, Cabinet Member for Planning, Infrastructure and Natural Environment, Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council and Cllr Ken Rhatigan, Leader, Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council.

The letter is in response to the Goddards Farm planning appeal decision – application 18/03486/OUT.

A PDF of the letter is attached below.

Dear Nick and Development Control Committee members

Goddards Farm planning appeal decision – application 18/03486/OUT

Bramley Parish Council notes with satisfaction the Planning Inspector’s decision to dismiss the appeal on the decision to refuse permission for development at the Goddards Farm site in Sherfield-on-Loddon. However, it does open up a few questions from the point of view of Bramley residents including Parish Councillors

As you will be aware, there are two developments currently being built in Bramley, Centenary Fields in the east and Bramley View in the west. Whilst the sites are at opposite ends of the village, both have a couple of things in common with the Goddards Farm site. They are:

  • outside the settlement policy boundary
  • overlooking Conservation Areas

The points outlined below are illustrative – had they been given the same level of response from Borough officers and Councillors, they would have been refused. The reasons given by BDBC for refusal for the Goddards Farm site were:

  1. The proposed site would be outside the settlement policy boundary, and therefore contrary to Local Plan policies SD1, SS1, and SS6 of the BDBC Local Plan. This would have applied to both Centenary Fields and Bramley View, and in addition they would have been contrary to Bramley Neighbourhood Plan policy H1.
  2. The proposed development would not be sympathetic to, and would fail to respect and integrate with the character, visual amenity and scenic quality of the local landscape. The proposal is contrary to Policies EM1 and EM10 of the BDBC Local Plan. This would have applied to both Bramley sites, and particularly the Bramley View site, sitting as it does on the edge of the Conservation area and at the end of Cufaude Lane, with registered important views being adversely affected. In addition to the BDBC policies, it was contrary to Bramley Neighbourhood Plan policy D1 and D2.
  3. The proposed development would cause harm to the special character, appearance and setting of the western part of the Sherfield on Loddon Conservation Area and its significance as a separate and rural part of the village. The harm caused would be by virtue of urbanising and eroding its rural context which is integral to its significance and appreciation. The benefits of the development would not sufficiently outweigh that harm. The proposal is contrary to Policy EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan. Again, this would have applied to both of the Bramley developments and their proximity to the two Bramley Conservation areas, particularly in the east at Centenary Fields. Both locations are in a rural setting, which the developments have demonstrably damaged. Again, the developments are contrary to the Bramley Neighbourhood Plan, policy RE2.

Whilst the Parish Council appreciates that the Goddards Farm development would also have impacted a scheduled monument, all the other reasons given for refusal of the Goddards Farm development also applied to both of the Bramley developments.

Bramley Parish Council has noted comments made by the public on social media, and would echo many of them. Whilst it is happy that the Sherfield application was refused, the argument given by officers at BDBC for granting the Bramley applications was that if they weren’t accepted, then the developers would appeal the decision, which BDBC would lose. This was accepted by the DC Committee, and Bramley was then left with 115 new houses – more than the number that has just been refused in Sherfield. This also resulted in more social and affordable housing than was required to meet the Bramley local need, therefore contributing to the wider Borough housing need. It certainly does appear that Bramley is favoured over Sherfield for new development.

Bramley Parish Council insists that such development proposals in the future in Bramley, especially those outside the Settlement Policy Boundary and neighbouring the Conservation Area are refused and if necessary, defended robustly at appeal as Goddards Farm was. Bramley has had more than its fair share of new development and all in the early period of the Local Plan, and the local infrastructure is now at or beyond capacity, with no sign of any improvement. New development will be seen as a catastrophe for the Parish and unsustainable.

Yours sincerely

Maxta Thomas

Clerk to Bramley Parish Council


FileDescriptionFile sizeLast modified
Download this file (Goddards_Lane_appeal_decision_letter_09-19_final.pdf)Goddards_Lane_appeal_decision_letter_09-19_final.pdf 163 kBTue, 24 Sep 2019 19:49:17

Bookings Diary

Clift Meadow

Village Hall

Find us on Facebook

BramleyPC Twitter Feed