Three residential dwellings at Land Adjacent To 11 Ox Drove, Picket Piece, Andover

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Test Valley Northern Area Planning Committee on 12 Mar 2026.

26/00110/FULLNApproved

What was proposed

The application sought three homes with access, parking, landscaping, infrastructure and associated works, including relocating the vehicle access.

“PROPOSAL 3.1 The application seeks permission for the erection of three dwellings and associated works including the re-location of the vehicle access towards the north-eastern corner of the site.”

Officer report

The site

The site was grassland beside an existing home, with mature trees along its north-eastern boundary and land rising towards the south-east.

“SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2.1 The application site is a parcel of land adjacent to the existing residential property of 11 Ox Drove and is comprised of medium length grass with mature trees along the north-eastern boundary. The land level of the site rises from north-west to south-east.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An earlier five-home scheme was refused for harming the character and appearance of Ox Drove, while a nearby six-home refusal was dismissed on appeal.

“The proposal by virtue of the density of development and the fact the development is formed in depth relative to Ox Drove and that these dwellings would be located on rising land south of Ox Drove, is unacceptable. The character and appearance of the southern side of Ox Drove mainly comprises a mix of frontage development and low density housing.”

“The above refusal was dismissed at appeal. In their report, the Inspector concludes:”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the homes would be in a sustainable location and their benefits would outweigh countryside, agricultural land and character harm.

“In this instance, on balance, it is considered that the provision of 3 dwellings towards the council’s HLS in a sustainable location would not be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the harm in departing from the development plan, the loss of 0.23 hectares of agricultural land, and the limited harm to the character of the area as a result of the proposed depth of the development, and permission is therefore recommended.”

“CONCLUSION 9.1 The proposal is contrary to the development plan in that it proposes residential development in a countryside location. Notwithstanding this, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development (NPPF paragraph 11(d)), the benefits of the development, namely the provision of housing in a sustainable location and the economic benefits during construction and occupation, would significantly outweigh the harm identified to the character and…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, refuse and trees raised no objection subject to conditions, while ecology objected over bat survey methods and managing biodiversity land.

“CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Ecology: Objection • The ecological assessment states that the boundaries of the site provide good foraging and commuting habitat for bats but the methodology described for bats is in line with low suitability sites. • Concerns regarding the future manageability of the proposed Biodiversity Net Gain land.”

“Highways Authority: No objection subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Objections received

Two objections said the siting, scale, density and location would harm local character and raised concerns about noise and boundary treatment.

“REPRESENTATIONS Expired 20.02.2026 6.1 Two letters of objection have been received from 7B Ox Drove and 14 Locksbridge Road and are summarised as follows:”

“The siting, scale, density and location is harmful to the character of the area. • Concerns regarding noise from the adjacent site to the east and the lack of a robust boundary treatment. • Small houses would not be in keeping with the character of the area if it is considered to have an industrial character as set out in application 24/02977/FULLN (Plot 90 for 4 warehouses).”

Officer report

The committee vote

Councillor Budzynski proposed the agenda motion, Councillor Gillies seconded it, and the motion was carried.

“The motion as set out in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Budzynski and seconded by Councillor Gillies. Upon being put to the vote the motion was carried.”

Minutes

Sources

  • Test Valley Northern Area Planning Committee minutes, 12 March 2026
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Test Valley's committee minutes and officer report. 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

Date
Thursday 12 March 2026
Recommendation
Officers recommended approval
Committee decided
Approved
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)

This committee's year

11 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 2 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →