AN APPEAL by a developer to build 26 houses in Sherborne St John has been dismissed by a planning inspector. 

In June 2022, Sigma Planning Services applied to Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council for outline planning permission for the erection of up to 26 dwellings and associated infrastructure on land at Cranesfield. 

However, the application received 238 comments from residents objecting to the plans due to concerns that it could 'worsen the awful parking situation', 'ruin views' of nearby St Andrews church and have negative impacts on the biodiversity of the area.

The plans were rejected by the borough council in a decision notice issued on March 15, 2023, as 'the development would have a harmful and urbanising effect upon the rural character and appearance of the area'.

READ MORE: New leader taking charge of Basingstoke's Labour group

Basingstoke Gazette: The proposed development in Sherborne St John

The notice added that the development would also 'erode the rural setting' of Sherborne St John and listed buildings within the village 'thereby resulting in harm to the significance of heritage assets'.

Sigma Planning Services filed an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the decision in August 2023, saying it rejected the decision notice as the 26 homes would be set 'against a housing shortfall' and would 'support the Government's target to significantly boost housing delivery'.

The applicant added that the development 'would not be detrimental to the visual amenity and character of the area' and would 'successfully integrate' with the surrounding buildings.

SEE ALSO: Solar farm on land near Watership Down met with wave of objections

The appeal concluded that the council's plans for delivering housing in Sherborne St John were 'out of date' as it was 'unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply'.

Housing land supply is a calculation which assesses whether there is a deliverable supply of homes to meet planned housing requirements.

However, planning inspector Guy Davies dismissed the appeal on May 14.

Mr Davies said that the development would 'conflict with the development plan as a whole', and that the council only needed to show a four-year housing land supply under a change of Government policy, which it would meet.

He added that 'harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the landscape' by the development.