# Windmill Down Farm, Church Lane, Hambledon

- **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Aqbal
- **Authority:** South Downs National Park Authority (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** APP/Y9507/W/25/3362380
- **Application reference:** SDNP/23/04750/CND
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** s73 to raise soil-recycling throughput from 10,000 to 40,500 t/yr, relax HGV movement and size limits (up to 44 t GVW)
- **Site context:** national-park, rural-lane, open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** N4, DM6
- **Development plan policies:** South Downs Local Plan SD4, SD7, SD20, SD21, Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan Policy 4
- **Main issues:** National Park landscape character and relative tranquillity, amenity
- **Tags:** national-park, tranquillity, s73-conditions, transitional-no-consultation, old-style-acp, minerals-waste

## Summary
s73 appeal to loosen throughput, HGV-movement and vehicle-size conditions on a small soil-recycling facility in the South Downs National Park. Dismissed. The cumulative change would permit "a substantially different pattern and scale of activity" (DL ¶36), eroding the relative tranquillity that is a special quality of the National Park and the amenity of a historic rural lane network.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "the appeal principally concerns matters relating to landscape character, relative tranquillity and amenity within the South Downs National Park and I have identified no aspect of the revised Framework that materially alters my assessment of those matters" (DL ¶2).
- **National Park — N4 / SD4, SD7: FAIL.** "I attach substantial weight to the conservation and enhancement of landscape character, scenic beauty and the special qualities of the South Downs National Park" (DL ¶27). Tranquillity is "a particularly important consideration in this appeal, being both a recognised special quality of the South Downs National Park" (DL ¶30). The effects would be felt by walkers and cyclists across the lane network, "not confined to the point where a right of way meets the highway" (DL ¶35).
- **Amenity — SD20, SD21: FAIL** (DL ¶39).
- **Highways.** "the absence of a highway objection does not outweigh the harm I have identified" (DL ¶40).

## Planning balance
Plan-led. The significant economic and waste-recovery benefits (DL ¶41) are outweighed "having regard to the statutory purposes of National Park designation, the requirement to seek to further those purposes, and the importance of tranquillity as a recognised special quality" (DL ¶44).

## What made the difference
The original permission had been granted on the basis of a small-scale operation held in check by those very conditions (DL ¶42). A fourfold throughput increase and 44 t lorries on a narrow historic lane changed the operation's character. The absence of a highway-safety objection was irrelevant to a tranquillity-based harm.

## Transferable points
- In a National Park, relative tranquillity and the experience of rural lanes can decide the case on their own, without any visual or highway-safety harm (DL ¶¶30–36, 40).
- Conditions that underpinned the original planning balance will not be relaxed where doing so changes the scale of the operation (DL ¶¶36, 42).
- A further example of an inspector deciding under the 2026 Framework without consulting the parties because nothing material had changed (DL ¶2).

## Policy findings
- **N4: fail (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conserving landscape character, scenic beauty and special qualities of the National Park (statutory "seek to further" duty); increased HGV activity erodes relative tranquillity of Church Lane and the route network (DL 27, 30-36)
- **P3: harm.** amenity of residents and users of rights of way and historic rural roads harmed (SD20, SD21) (DL 37-39)
- **E1: benefit (significant weight).** waste recovery, employment and local economy (DL 41)

## Key facts
- Transition: "I have identified no aspect of the revised Framework that materially alters my assessment" (DL 2); decided without further consultation
- Four-fold throughput increase; removal of the separate cap on HGVs over 16.5 t; vehicles up to 44 t GVW on a narrow historic lane
- No highway-safety objection, but that did not outweigh the landscape and amenity harm (DL 40)

## Sources
- https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3362380
- https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=66059047

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/APP-Y9507-W-25-3362380.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.