An appeal for a 34-home development in Botley has been dismissed.

Eastleigh Borough Council previously rejected the plans in March last year, submitted by Chapman Lily Planning Ltd.

The developers had appealed the council's refusal but an inspector has now dismissed that.

Chapman Lily Planning Ltd had proposed to build the homes on land to the west of Cobbett Way, Botley.

The initial application, submitted on November 16, 2023, sought outline planning permission for the residential development, including associated infrastructure, with only access being a consideration.

However, the application was refused on March 4, 2024, for several reasons.

The proposed development was deemed 'inappropriate and unjustified,' with concerns about its urbanising impact on the designated countryside and settlement gap.

The council felt this was contrary to several policies in the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2016-2036) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

The decision also raised issues over insufficient information regarding the access road and its potential impact on the adjacent priority habitat, lowland mixed deciduous woodland, during construction and operation.

The lack of information about sustainable drainage was another sticking point.

The council said the plans did not demonstrate that the sustainable drainage could provide three forms of natural filtration and mitigate all pollution hazards.

This was deemed necessary to maintain the quality of runoff water entering the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area and Ramsar Site and Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation.

The planning authority also noted the application failed to secure provision for developer contributions towards the on and off-site provision of facilities and infrastructure.

This was another reason for refusal.

Finally, the application did not provide the required mitigation to offset the impacts of the development upon European protected sites, including the Solent Complex, River Itchen, and New Forest National Park.

This related to additional recreational pressure and nitrogen loading generated by the residential nature and additional sewage resulting from the development.

The appeal against the council's decision was lodged on September 16, but was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate on December 20.

The inspector upheld the council's reasons, stating the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside and settlement gap.