Four terraced homes at Land At Halliday Close, Basingstoke
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Basingstoke Development Control Committee on 10 Sept 2025.
What was proposed
The application proposed four two-storey three-bedroom terraced homes with gardens, landscaping, parking, cycle storage and waste facilities.
“The proposal is for the re-development of an existing hard-standing parking area to provide 4 terraced residential dwellings with associated private gardens, landscaping, car parking, cycle storage and waste/recycling.”
“This application seeks planning permission for the erection of 4 terraced dwellings with associated private gardens, landscaping, car parking, cycle storage and waste/recycling storage.”
Officer report
The site and surroundings
The site was an existing hardstanding area with unused garages in a built-up residential area near Kingsmill Recreation Ground.
“The application site comprises an existing hardstanding area located within a residential area. There are a number of semi-detached properties and garages surrounding the site, including a row of private unused garages on the site itself. The site is relatively flat and the character of the area is built up, however, beyond the residential dwellings in Halliday Close, there is Kingsmill Recreation Ground to the North.”
Officer report
Earlier applications and appeal
Earlier proposals for four, eight and six homes were withdrawn or refused, and an appeal against the six-home refusal was dismissed.
“Reference Description Decision Decision Date BDB/51170 Erection of 4 no 3 bed dwellings Withdrawn 17.09.2001 20/00123/FUL Erection of 8 no. residential dwellings (Class C3) along with associated car and cycle parking, waste/recycling storage, private amenity space and landscaping. Withdrawn 19.06.2020 20/02219/FUL Erection of 6 no. residential dwellings (Class C3) along with associated car and cycle parking, waste/recycling storage, private amenity space and landscaping.”
“The decision notice was then appealed and dismissed at appeal under reference: 21/00014/REF on the 18 th October 2021. The Inspector dismissed the appeal on neighbouring impact grounds.”
Officer report
What officers recommended
Officers recommended approval because the revised scheme was considered policy-compliant, sustainable, and unlikely to harm the area, neighbours, highways or flood safety.
“The proposal would not cause harm to the landscape and visual amenity of the area where the development would be in keeping with the character of the area in accordance with Policy EM1 and EM10 of the Local Plan 2011-2029.”
“Overall, given the compliance with local and national policy and no material concerns being raised, the proposal would be considered acceptable and is recommended for approval.”
Officer report
Consultation responses
Fourteen objections were received, while highways, biodiversity, environmental health, waste, trees and urban design consultees raised no objection subject to conditions or amendments.
“Initial comments: No objection subject to conditions Final comments: Reiterate previous comments v. South East Water (Engineering Department) No comments provided…”
“Consultee Comment Where in the report this is considered Biodiversity Initial comments: No objection subject to conditions Final comments: Reiterate previous comments vi. Environmental Health Initial comments: No objection subject to conditions Final comments: No objection subject to conditions iv., ix. Joint Waste Client Team Initial comments: No objection subject to conditions Final comments: As previous v. Landscape Team No objection subject to amendments iii.”
Officer report
What members discussed
Members supported the design, location and parking provision, while noting that Halliday Close residents currently parked vehicles on the site.
“The Committee discussed the proposed application and were in favour of the design, location and the parking provision which exceeded the required standard in the supplementary planning document.”
“It was highlighted that the residents of Halliday Close park their vehicles on the site. However, the supporting Planning Statement states that ‘there were no public or private rights or agreements in place to use the site as car parking.”
Minutes
The committee decision
Members considered there were no sufficient planning reasons to refuse the application and approved it.
“Members considered there were no sufficient planning reasons to refuse the application.”
“RESOLVED that: the application be APPROVED”
Minutes
Sources
- Basingstoke Development Control Committee minutes, 10 September 2025
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Basingstoke'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
- Council
- Basingstoke
- Date
- Wednesday 10 September 2025
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- Basingstoke committee decisions →
This committee's year
5 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.