# 14 St Catherines Road, Hayling Island (backland bungalow, outline) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Aqbal - **Authority:** Havant (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004592 - **Application reference:** APP/25/00185 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline permission (access, layout, scale) for a single-storey two-bed dwelling in the rear garden with new access past a protected oak - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.3 - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** S4, N3 - **Development plan policies:** Havant Core Strategy CS11, CS16, DM8, Havant Borough Design Guide SPD - **Main issues:** character, protected trees, tilted balance - **Tags:** transitional, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, backland, evidence-gap, trees-tpo ## Summary Outline permission was sought for a bungalow in the rear garden of a house in a spacious, tree-lined part of Hayling Island, with access past a protected oak. The inspector found the backland plot acceptable in character terms. But the appellant had not shown that the fixed access and layout could be built without harming protected trees. That uncertainty outweighed the benefit of one home even with a 1.3-year supply. The letter is dated 17 Aug 2026 and runs the December 2024 paragraph 11(d) tilted balance. ## Issues and findings - **Which Framework.** "The Council's evidence indicates that it can demonstrate only around 1.3 years of housing land supply. Consequently, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged and the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies" (DL ¶26). Trees are assessed under "paragraphs 136 and 187 of the Framework" (DL ¶23), which is the 2024 numbering. - **Character: PASS.** Departure from the frontage pattern "does not in itself establish harm" (DL ¶7), and "the effect on the character and appearance of the area would be limited" (DL ¶14). - **Trees: FAIL.** "the evidence before me does not adequately assess the relationship between the proposed access road and the root protection areas of the protected Oak" (DL ¶19). "conditions should not be used to defer consideration of a matter fundamental to establishing whether the development is acceptable in principle" (DL ¶22). - **Weight.** Housing: "significant weight … given the extent of the housing land supply shortfall" (DL ¶27). Tree uncertainty "attracts substantial weight against the proposal" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance The 2024 ¶11(d) tilted balance was applied. Under the 2026 Framework the site is inside a settlement, so S4 would apply with its "substantially outweighed" test. Against: substantial weight to the uncertainty over trees, plus conflict with CS11 and DM8. For: significant weight to one home, with modest energy-efficiency and economic benefits. Outcome: harm "would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference The outline sought approval of access and layout, which fixed the access line close to a TPO oak, and the arboricultural evidence was absent from the appeal and not BS5837-compliant. If the access had been reserved, or a proper arboricultural method statement had shown a no-dig solution, the character finding and 1.3-year supply would probably have carried it. ## Transferable points - Even with a very low supply (1.3 years), unresolved harm to protected trees can outweigh a small housing scheme (DL ¶27-29). - Where access and layout are for approval, tree feasibility must be shown now; a condition requiring an arboricultural method statement cannot defer it (DL ¶22). - A backland plot that departs from the frontage pattern is not harmful in itself; its scale and resulting plot sizes decide it (DL ¶7-14). - An example of an inspector applying the 2024 ¶11(d) test on the day the 2026 Framework took effect (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** backland plot departs from the frontage pattern but modest single-storey scale and retained plot sizes mean only limited effect on character; accords CS16 and Framework design aims (DL 7-15) - **N3: fail (substantial weight).** arboricultural evidence (not BS5837-compliant, not resubmitted at appeal) cannot show the fixed access and layout avoid root protection areas of a TPO oak; condition cannot defer a matter of principle (DL 16-23, 28) - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** one dwelling given significant weight in view of a 1.3-year supply (DL 27) - **S4: fail.** applied as 2024 para 11(d): adverse impacts 'significantly and demonstrably outweigh' the benefits (DL 26, 29) ## Key facts - Council supply about 1.3 years; 2024 para 11(d) tilted balance applied on 17 Aug 2026 (DL 26) - Access and layout fixed at outline, so the tree impact had to be shown at this stage (DL 16, 22) - Arboricultural report from the application was not put in with the appeal (DL 17) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004592 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7cfb973b-fdac-455c-b4e9-9e9e4a6b370c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004592.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.