Delight for campaigners as planning inspector rejects 200-home estate
HURST: A village-wide campaign to protect Hurst from overdevelopment has received a boost after a government appointed planning inspector dismissed an appeal from Mactaggart and Mickel Homes England Ltd to build 200 on the land east of Lodge Road.
‘Say No to 200 houses’, led by members of the village and backed by Hurst Parish Council, started with leaflets and banners and later funded a barrister to represent the village's objections at the eight-day public planning inquiry.
In June 2022 Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) rejected an application which outlined Mactaggart and Mickel’s plans for a variety of new homes in what would be called ‘Lodge Green’.
Lack of highway safety and insufficient affordable housing were two of the reasons given by WBC, highlighting also some concern that the development would drastically change the landscape of the village and put pressure on local resources.
In response to this decision Mactaggart and Mickel made amendments to its plans, with particular reference to ensuring clearer road access, but felt that launching an appeal against WBC’s rejection decision was also necessary.
The inquiry took place in January and Hurst Parish Council was given legal rights to represent its ‘Say No’ case, alongside Wokingham Borough Council’s own barrister.
Villagers also flooded the public areas of the hearing, some giving passionate first-hand accounts of what it is like to live in the village now and what they fear for its future if 200 more homes were to be built.
The developer’s barrister, Rupert Warren, argued that the development, including a mix of flats, homes, recreational facilities and walking and cycling links, would have brought many benefits to the area.
He also pointed out that WBC does not have a sufficient five-year land supply.
After a deliberation of just under a month, planning inspector David Wildsmith ruled in favour of no development, pointing out that the scheme fell beyond the village’s settlement boundary and that a development there would affect the area’s character, biodiversity and infrastructure.
He said: “Even though the council is currently unable to demonstrate a deliverable five-year housing land supply, I don’t consider it reasonable to ignore the bigger picture, which is a very strong likelihood that the council will achieve a significant oversupply.
“To my mind, this does not signify a council that is failing in terms of housing provision, but rather one which is performing well and managing to boost the supply of housing over that which it planned for.
“While the [shortfall] is clearly a matter of concern, no persuasive evidence has been placed that the most sensible or appropriate way to address this is to grant planning permission for a significantly sized development which would run counter to [the council's long-term] vision.”
He added: “The appeal proposal would give rise to some benefits [but] my clear conclusion is that the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh these.”
Cllr Lindsay Ferris, executive member for planning and local plan, said of the verdict: “We’re delighted at this confirmation that we can defend ourselves from unsuitable, speculative development, even when we can’t technically show a five-year housing land supply, and pleased to have stopped irreversible change to the character of this rural community.
“Despite what some have wrongly concluded, we still have a valid local plan that runs until 2026 – and this decision supports our case, which we will cite if we’re challenged in this way again.”