60 homes at 46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by East Hampshire Planning Committee on 16 Oct 2025.
No officer report was published for this decision; this summary is from the committee minutes.
Reserved matters for 60 homes
This was an application to approve the remaining design details for 60 houses with parking, landscaping and open space, south west of Four Marks.
“The Chairman invited Summer Sharpe, Senior Planning Officer to introduce the application. The Supplementary Matters Paper included some corrections to the report and an additional representation which related to issues that had already been raised and addressed in the report. This was an application for the approval of all outstanding reserved matters for the development of 60 residential dwellings with associated parking, landscaping, open space, infrastructure and works.”
Minutes
Officers recommended approval
Officers concluded the layout, design, neighbouring amenity, highways and drainage were acceptable and recommended approval subject to conditions.
“The material planning considerations included: • The principle of development had already been established as part of the previous outline application approved at appeal. • The layout followed the parameters of the outline application approved at appeal and the design of the dwellings were considered to be acceptable and materials were secured by Condition 10.”
“Therefore, the application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in the report. The Chairman thanked the Officer for their presentation and proceeded to inform Members that four people had registered to speak in respect of this application. [name withheld] raised an objection to the application as set out in Appendix (iii), attached to these minutes.”
Minutes
Objectors and the agent spoke
A resident, Four Marks Parish Council and the ward councillor objected, while the agent spoke in support of the application.
Drainage and overlooking questioned
Members questioned flooding risk, overlooking of neighbouring gardens, non-native landscaping and climate change measures, and officers responded to each point.
“It was questioned if the possibility of SuDS overflowing was to be dealt with at the discharge of conditions stage. The Officer advised the drainage strategy had covered the 1 in 100 year plus 45% climate change event and the Local Lead Flood Authority were satisfied with that information. It was questioned whether there could be a condition imposed at the reserved matters stage to ensure outstanding conditions on the outline application were delivered.”
“The information submitted in the energy statement was considered appropriate and a verification report was secured by Condition 15 to ensure the built development was constructed in accordance with the approved scheme and sustainability measures set out in the Energy Statement so that it incorporated necessary mitigation and adaptation measures with regard to climate change. It was questioned if it could it be added as an informative.”
Minutes
Condition added on retaining wall
The committee added a condition requiring details of the retaining wall's future maintenance before plots 55 to 60 are built.
“It was questioned where the liability would lie if the site was to flood. It was confirmed this would be an issue between land owners and not for the Council. It was also advised that the maintenance of the drainage features was secured by a condition. Members questioned if the retaining wall on the north east boundary would be maintained by a management company in perpetuity.”
Minutes
Committee voted to approve
The committee voted unanimously, 10 to 0, to approve the application subject to the conditions and the added retaining wall condition.
“The Planning Solicitor confirmed with the Committee that the recommendation was to grant reserved matters approval in accordance with the recommendation in the officer’s report and the additional condition regarding the retaining wall with delegated authority to officers to amend the wording of the conditions and Section 106 obligations.”
Minutes
The members' reasons
“One member considered that although the applicant proposed a fabric first approach, there should be more reference to climate change mitigation such as solar panels, charging points or heat pumps.”
Minutes
Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.
Sources
- East Hampshire Planning Committee minutes, 16 October 2025
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of East Hampshire's committee minutes. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- East Hampshire Planning Committee
- Council
- East Hampshire
- Date
- Thursday 16 October 2025
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- View application →
- All decisions
- East Hampshire committee decisions →
This committee's year
5 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.