230 homes and infrastructure at Shutler Close, Rownhams

“SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2.1 The application site is located east of the existing Broadleaf Park development which is a newly built residential estate to the south of the M27 motorway. It would be accessed via Shutler Close to the southeast and via Babey Avenue to the northeast.”

“Immediately to the north of the site is the existing SANG (Suitable and Alternative Natural Greenspace) that serves the existing residential development and this would be available to the future occupiers of the proposed houses.”

“Adjacent site – 14/00726/OUTS Demolition of two dwellings and existing farmhouse and associated farm buildings; the construction of a new access on Rownhams Lane, the construction of up to 320 residential dwellings and a 60 unit extra care facility; the construction of a livery comprising stables for up to 30 horses and manege; the change of use of land from agricultural to paddocks and associated road/footway/cycleway provision, open space and landscaping.”

“18/00662/RESS Residential development of 20 dwellings and informal recreation space (phase 4) - Reserved Matters of 14/00726/OUTS. Approval subject to conditions and notes 05.10.2018”

“The application site is within the countryside as defined by policy COM2 of the TVBRLP and therefore the proposal is in conflict with the development framework of the Local Plan. However, the absence of a 5-year housing land supply results in the engagement of the tilted balance and limits the planning harm arising from this conflict.”

“CONCLUSION 9.1 The proposal is in conflict with the TVBRLP, however, in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004), an assessment of other material considerations has been undertaken, and it is concluded that there are other material considerations in this instance that weigh in favour of the grant of planning permission.”

“REPRESENTATIONS Expired 07.07.2026 6.1 Nursling and Rownhams Parish Council – Objection. • Conflict with COM2, COM8 and COM9 – principle of development • Conflict with E5 – loss of biodiversity • Pressure on local infrastructure…”

“Principle of Development • The location of the proposed development is unsustainable • The development conflicts with the local plan • There would be a cumulative impact of the proposed development • The application site is not allocated in the emerging local plan • The benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm…”

“Councillor Bundy proposed and Councillor A Dowden seconded the motion for deferral. Upon being put to the vote the motion was carried.”

“There was concern that the description provided in the application form and, by extension, the report and associated statutory advertisements of the application had not fully captured elements of the proposal – this included a café and micro-mobility hub that had been referenced elsewhere in the submission.”

“DEFERRED on all grounds but in particular to allow: • The scope and extent of the planning application to be clarified between the applicant and the Local Planning Authority and for any revised description of the proposed development to be amended and readvertised appropriately.”