Pine Lodge, Chilworth Drove, Chilworth

Decision

dismissed, 17 August 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: S Leonard

Authority

Test Valley (South East)

Appeal reference

6009745

Application reference

25/02219/FULLS

Procedure

written representations

Development

Detached 4-bed dwelling and carport in side garden of existing house

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, rural lane, TPO

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

2.54 years

Framework applied

December 2024 NPPF (transitional)

Determinative policies

NPPF2024 para 11(d)(ii), Test Valley RLP COM2, TR3

Development plan policies

Test Valley Revised Local Plan 2011-2029 COM2, E1, E2, LHW4

Main issues

location; character and appearance; privacy; SPAs

Summary

A new market dwelling in a garden 500 m outside Chilworth, reached along unlit, footway-less rural lanes, was dismissed. The decision was issued on 17 August 2026, the day the new Framework took effect, but it is reasoned wholly under the December 2024 Framework. It uses the ¶11(d)(ii) tilted balance with a 2.54-year supply, ¶61, ¶73 and Chapter 12, and does not mention the 2026 Framework at all.

Issues and findings

• Location: FAIL. "future occupiers would be required to traverse most of the route along narrow, single width rural lanes … no street lighting, and in the main, no footpath" (DL ¶14). "they would be almost wholly dependent upon the car for all such journeys … would not provide a genuine choice" (DL ¶16). COM2 was given moderate weight despite the supply shortfall, being "generally consistent with … the National Planning Policy Framework 2024" (DL ¶11).
• Character: FAIL. Two dwellings side by side and a large parking area would give "a detrimental erosion of the prevailing verdant soft landscaped rural character" (DL ¶26). RPA incursion into a protected Cypress exceeded BS5837's 20%, and tree protection could not be left to condition (DL ¶¶30–33). The Inspector described this as "contrary to Policies of the Framework which seek to achieve well-designed places as set out in Chapter 12" (DL ¶35).
• Privacy: PASS (DL ¶¶37–39).

Planning balance

2024 ¶11(d)(ii) tilted balance. The benefits of one family home got moderate weight, and the location and character harm was significant: "the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶51).

What made the difference

Car dependence on unlit rural lanes, plus suburbanisation of a verdant lane and a threat to a TPO tree. Under the 2026 Framework this would have been an S5 case: a garden plot outside a settlement, not in any S5(1) category. The outcome would very likely have been the same or firmer.

Transferable points

• Evidence of the transition: at least one PINS decision dated 17 August 2026 applied the 2024 Framework in full without acknowledging the new one (DL ¶¶11, 44–51).
• Unlit single-track lanes with no footway over about 500 m to a Key Service Centre gave "almost wholly dependent upon the car" (DL ¶¶14–16).
• RPA incursion over 20% with no services or drainage routing is not curable by condition (DL ¶¶32–33).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Housing land supply agreed at 2.54 years
• Site 500 m south of Chilworth, separated by M27 and countryside; lanes unlit, no footway
• Protected trees (Oak, Beech, two Lawson Cypress) on boundaries
• Solent/New Forest SPA nutrient and recreation mitigation s106 not completed (AA not needed)

Sources

• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)
• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.