Of eight reasons for refusal, only two remained at the time of Inquiry, namely on landscape and design. Basingstoke and Deane lacked a five year housing land supply.

The Inspector concluded that the development would be a “significantly urbanising and strident intervention into the countryside” (DL/26) and would “appear insensitively sited and visually jarring” (DL/28).

On design the Inspector was particularly critical of the failure to evolve the scheme in response to consultee feedback, including the Design Review Panel. She concluded at DL/43 that “the appellant team’s challenge to this point [i.e. that the scheme did not evolve] was not persuasive, though the belief that Whitchurch as limited other options for expansion appears to underline the insistence that the scheme is irresistible in any event.”

The Inspector also departed from the policy HC4 in the NPPF that substantial weight should be given to the provision of community facilities, including pubs. She accepted the Council’s evidence that there were real risks to the deliverability of the pub (DL/72).

Overall the Inspector was satisfied that the benefits were substantially outweighed by the harms and refused permission, notwithstanding the lack of a five year housing land supply (DL/79).