Hall restoration and apartments at Overstone Hall Overstone Park, Overstone

The site and setting

The site lies outside the village confines in open countryside and Green Wedge, with the Hall and other parkland structures listed.

“13.05.2026 Thank you for consulting me on the further amendments to the above application. I note the additional houses proposed within the parkland and the extra trench added to the plan to extend the Phase 2 evaluation. I have already indicated that the remainder of the evaluation can be carried out by condition so would refer you to my response of 3rd March 2026 for the recommended conditions.”

“SCLP policy RA3 focuses development within the confines at Other Villages, development outside the confines is only supported under three circumstances, none of which apply to this proposal. Policy RA6 of the SCLP aims to protect the character, beauty and tranquillity of the open countryside. The proposal does not fall into any of the 12 supported forms of development. ONP Policy 5 requires development outside the confines to meet provisions of SCLP RA3 and RA6.”

Officer report

The officers’ concerns

Officers advised refusal because the proposal conflicted with spatial and rural policies and could compromise the Green Wedge and the Hall’s significance.

“Conclusion The proposal fundamentally conflicts with the spatial strategy and rural policies of the development plan there is also the potential for it to compromise the purpose of the Green Wedge in this location. These conflicts will need to be weighed against the desirability of restoring the Hall and whether the scale and type of enabling development will cover the conservation deficit to achieve an appropriate restoration.”

Officer report

What the agent said

The agent said urgent restoration was needed, enabling development was the only available solution, and the identified concerns could be controlled.

The committee’s debate

Members considered refusal, deferral to resolve highways and ecology matters, and approval because restoration and redevelopment benefits would outweigh policy harm.

“Following the loss of the vote, the Head of Development Management explained that the Committee could opt to defer the application to enable Officers to work with the Applicant to seek to resolve the outstanding matters raised by statutory consultees on areas such as Highways and Ecology, with the application to be brought back before the Committee at a later date for determination.”

“Following further debate, it was proposed by Councillor Scott Packer and seconded by Councillor Ronald Firman that application 2025/0711/MAF be approved contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation on the grounds that the eventual benefits achieved through the restoration and redevelopment of Overstone Hall would outweigh any harm set out through conflict with development plan policies.”

Minutes

How members voted

The committee rejected refusal, rejected deferral, then carried approval by six votes to five with no abstentions.

“It was then proposed by Councillor Sally Keeble and seconded by Councillor Christine Ware that a decision on application 2025/0711/MAF be deferred to enable Officers to work with the Applicant to resolve outstanding matters raised by statutory consultees. The motion was put to the vote with five votes cast in favour of the proposal, six votes cast against with no abstentions, therefore the motion was lost and subsequently fell.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved the application contrary to the officer recommendation and delegated permission, the legal agreement and planning conditions to officers.

“(1) That authority be delegated to the Assistant Director – Planning and Development to grant permission to application 2025/0711/MAF contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.”

Minutes