30/01/2026
One up for the Great Crested Newt !!!......
Our Ref: 25/02051/FUL 30 January 2026
Dear Mr Morgan,
Location: Land At Cranesfield Sherborne St John Hampshire
Proposal: Full Planning Application for residential development of the site with
access, roads, parking, open space, SuDs and associated
infrastructure for 26 residential dwellings.
I refer to the application submitted in respect of the above mentioned proposal and to the
representations which you have made.
Permission has been refused for the following reasons:
1 The proposed development, by virtue of the scale, density, layout and appearance would
have a harmful and urbanising effect upon the landscape, character and visual amenity
of the area with adverse impacts on Key Viewpoints 1, 2 and 5 contained within the
Sherborne St John Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2029. The development would not respect
the existing settlement pattern and is overly urbanised, whereby it would not
satisfactorily integrate into its setting or positively contribute to the overall quality of the
area. The proposal would therefore not be sympathetic to or enhance the landscape
character or visual quality of the area nor would it contribute to local distinctiveness or
sense of place falling contrary to Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane
Local Plan 2011-2029, Policies 3, 4 and 7 of the Sherborne St John Neighbourhood Plan
2011-2029 and the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) as well as
guidance contained within the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning
Document (2018) and the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning
Document (2018).
2 The proposed development would erode the rural setting of the Sherborne St John
Conservation Area and that of listed buildings within it (namely Grade I listed St Andrews
Church, Grade II listed Manor Farm House and the non-designated medieval fishpond),
through the siting, layout, scale and appearance of the development resulting in the loss
of open space and views afforded of the countryside, thereby resulting in harm to the
significance of heritage assets and to the ability to appreciate such significance. When
having regard to Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990, the proposed development conflicts with Policy EM11 of the
Page 2 of 3
Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, Policy 9 of the Sherborne St John
Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2029, the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) and
guidance contained within the Heritage Supplementary Planning Document (2019).
3 The development has not demonstrated that there would be no harm to Great Crested
Newts. It is considered that there would be satisfactory alternatives for the proposal in a
different location and it has not been evidenced that there would be no harmful impacts
to the protected species when assessing the development against the three derogation
tests required for a European Protected Species (EPS) license. Consequently, the
Council is not satisfied that an EPS licence would be granted. As such, the development
is contrary to Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 to 2029, Policy
6 of the Sherborne St John Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2029, the National Planning
Policy Framework 2024 and guidance contained within the Landscape, Biodiversity and
Trees Supplementary Planning Document (2018).
4 Insufficient information has been submitted to ascertain the impact that the
development would have on bats, dormouse and the Local Network Recovery Strategy.
As such, the development is contrary to Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local
Plan 2011 to 2029, Policy 6 of the Sherborne St John Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2029,
the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) and guidance contained within the
Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document (2018).
5 Insufficient information has been provided to establish whether the proposed
development, by virtue of the site layout, would create pressure to fell nearby trees.
These boundary trees make a positive contribution towards the character and
appearance of the locality and therefore further information is required to ensure the
integrity of these trees can be protected. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy
EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029, the National Planning Policy
Framework (2024) and guidance contained within the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees
Supplementary Planning Document (2018).
6 The road layout has not been demonstrated to provide a suitable an on-site movement
layout compatible for all potential users with appropriate parking provision and therefore
falls contrary to Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-
2029, the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) and guidance contained within the
Parking Supplementary Planning Document (2018).
7 The application has failed to provide a sequential test and has failed to demonstrate the
current and future impacts of surface and ground water risks to ensure that future
occupiers would remain safe for the lifetime of the development. The development is
therefore contrary to Policy EM7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029
and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
8 The proposed development would not provide high quality amenity for future occupiers,
namely in Plots 3, 16, 19 and 23 due to the lack of sufficient private amenity space by
virtue of size and useability. The development would also not respect required back-toback
distances for Plots 25 and 26 and therefore would present unacceptable levels of
overlooking. Accordingly, the proposed development is contrary to Policy EM10 of the
Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 - 2029, the National Planning Policy
Framework (2024) and guidance contained within the Design and Sustainability
Supplementary Planning Document (2018).
9 In the absence of any suitable legal agreement, or justification for the absence of a legal
agreement, the proposed development does not make adequate provision for
community and infrastructure contributions in relation to Affordable Housing, Green
Infrastructure, Equipped Play, Biodiversity Net Gain and Landscape Management. The
proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies CN1, CN6, EM1, and EM5 of the
Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, Policies 3 and 6 of the Sherborne St
John Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2029, the National Planning Policy Framework (2024)
and the guidance contained within the Housing Supplementary Planning Document
2018, the Planning Obligations for Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document
(2018), the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document
(2018) and the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended).