The Inspector considered that the proposal was inconsistent with the spatial hierarchy, which sought to avoid development in the open countryside outside settlement boundaries (para. 66 – 67) and would result in landscape and visual harm (para. 68). He found the proposal contrary to the local development plan as a whole, and material considerations did not justify granting planning permission (para. 70). 

In addition, the Inspector would have, in any event, have dismissed the appeal on the ground of adverse impacts on the integrity of the Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation, such that the test for granting planning permission under the Habitats Regulation was not met. The proposed Sustainable Alternative Natural Greenspace (designed to absorb recreational pressure from the development) – in this case Kingsbrook SANG – was not certain to come forwards. Kingsbrook SANG had not been granted planning permission, but was at reserved matters stage; there was an extant objection from the Environment Agency; and it was being brought forwards third party developer and not the Council itself (para. 49). The “rigorous test” in the Habitats Regulations was not met (para. 52) because of “a range of factors” including technical matters yet to be overcome in the planning process (para. 55). 

The decision can be found here.