Looking into the Planning Applications over recent years to develop Padnell Grange, APP/19/00224 and APP/26/00332
Yes. Looking at the planning history, there is an important distinction between planning applications and site allocation in the Local Plan. The history is a little more nuanced than it first appears.
1. The 2019 planning application (APP/19/00224)
In February 2019, an application was submitted to:
- demolish Padnell Grange and ancillary buildings;
- build 86 dwellings;
- remove three protected oak trees (TPOs);
- provide parking, landscaping and drainage works.
However, this application was never refused. Instead, it remained under consideration for several years before being withdrawn by the applicant in October 2024.
Havant Borough Council
Planning Development Services
29th of October 2024
2. Why wasn’t it approved?
The publicly available planning documents indicate several issues that required resolution, including:
- the historic value of Padnell Grange and its associated barn;
- the retention and protection of protected oak trees;
- nearby woodland and ecological constraints;
- watercourses crossing the site;
- drainage and sewer capacity;
- ground conditions.
The Council’s Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) specifically states that:
- the Grange and barn have local historic value and should be retained and improved where possible;
- protected trees would need to be accommodated;
- there is nevertheless a reasonable prospect that suitable development could be achieved.
Havant Borough Council
Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA)
February 2026
3. Was Padnell Grange previously rejected as a housing site?
There is evidence that earlier proposals for development on the site encountered difficulties, but the current planning policy position has changed significantly.
Padnell Grange is now identified in Havant Borough Council’s Local Plan allocations as Site W126, meaning the Council has accepted the principle that housing can be appropriate there, subject to meeting several site-specific requirements. Those include:
- retaining and protecting TPO trees where possible;
- providing a Heritage Statement;
- addressing ecological impacts;
- investigating contamination and ground conditions;
- resolving sewer capacity issues;
- using the existing access onto Padnell Road.
Havant Borough Council
Havant Borough
25th of March 2026
So, unlike many greenfield sites, the principle of residential development is now supported through the emerging Local Plan, although that does not mean every planning application will automatically be approved.
4. The new application
A new application (APP/26/00332) has now been registered.
It proposes:
- demolition of the existing buildings;
- 90 residential dwellings (an increase from 86);
- upgraded access from Padnell Road;
- associated landscaping and infrastructure.
Havant Borough Council
Planning Development Services
2nd of July 2026
5. The issue of the oak trees
One point that may attract scrutiny is the treatment of the protected oak trees.
The previous application explicitly proposed removing three TPO oak trees. The Local Plan allocation, however, states that the design and layout should aim to retain and protect TPO trees, so it will be interesting to see whether the revised scheme has altered its layout to better accommodate those trees or whether further removals are still proposed.
Havant Borough Council
Havant Borough
25th of March 2026
Let’s investigate further
Having looked deeper into the planning history, I think there is a much more interesting story than simply “it was rejected before.”
The chronology
2019 – Original application (APP/19/00224)
Bellway Homes applied for:
- demolition of Padnell Grange;
- demolition of associated buildings;
- 86 dwellings;
- removal of 3 protected (TPO) oak trees.
Havant Borough Council
Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA)
February 2026
2021 – Applicant changes
One fact that isn’t widely known is that Bellway Homes was no longer the applicant after April 2021.
The Council’s Housing Delivery Action Plan records:
- “Applicant changed from Bellway Homes to The Borrow Foundation in April 2021.”
It also records:
- “Protracted discussions regarding design and layout, and the need to retain Padnell Grange as a non-designated heritage asset.”
Havant Civic Society
(Public Pack) Agenda Document for Planning Policy Committee
14th of February 2022
That sentence is very revealing.
It tells us the application was not simply waiting in a queue.
Planning officers were engaged in lengthy negotiations because they wanted changes.
The heritage issue appears to have been significant
One recurring theme through the planning documents is the status of Padnell Grange itself.
Although it is not a Listed Building, the Council repeatedly identifies it as a non-designated heritage asset.
The SHELAA says:
- “The existing Grange and barn on site have some historic value and should be retained and improved as part of any scheme.”
It also notes that retaining those buildings could affect the financial viability of development.
That wording is important.
Havant Borough Council
Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA)
February 2026
Planning officers weren’t merely saying “there is an old building.”
They were saying:
- it has heritage value;
- it ought to be retained where possible;
- redevelopment should work around it.
Yet the application proposed demolition.
Trees were another major issue
The proposal also sought permission to remove three protected oak trees.
The current Local Plan allocation has become noticeably firmer on this point.
Policy W126 now states that development should:
- “aim to retain and protect TPO trees.”
That suggests the Council expects schemes to work around these trees wherever possible.
Havant Borough Council
Havant Borough
25th of March 2026
Why was the application withdrawn?
This is probably the biggest question.
There is no published refusal.
Instead, after more than five years, the application was withdrawn in October 2024.
Havant Borough Council
Planning Development Services
29th of October 2024
Planning applications are commonly withdrawn when:
- officers indicate they cannot recommend approval;
- the applicant wants to redesign the scheme;
- negotiations have stalled;
- planning policy has changed.
At present, I have not found evidence that officers formally recommended refusal. Equally, the available documents show prolonged negotiations over design and heritage rather than a straightforward path to approval. It would not be appropriate to conclude that the application was “about to be refused” without an officer report or similar evidence.
Then something changed…
The emerging Local Plan now allocates Padnell Grange as Site W126.
In effect, the Council now accepts that housing can be built there, provided strict conditions are met regarding:
- heritage;
- protected trees;
- ecology;
- archaeology;
- drainage;
- sewer capacity;
- contaminated land;
- existing access.
Havant Borough Council
Havant Borough
24th of March 2026
That is quite a shift from earlier concerns about retaining the Grange itself.
The new application (APP/26/00332)
A fresh application has now been submitted.
It proposes:
- demolition of the existing buildings;
- 90 dwellings (up from 86);
- upgraded access;
- landscaping and associated works.
Havant Borough Council
Planning Development Services
2nd of July 2026
The crucial question is:
What has changed sufficiently to justify demolition now, when previous negotiations centred on retaining the Grange?
That is something the planning documents should explain.
Document-by-document examination should be next on the agenda
Rather than speculate, we should compare the two applications directly.
Specifically, I would like to examine:
- The Design & Access Statement from both applications.
- The Heritage Statement from both applications.
- The Tree Survey / Arboricultural Impact Assessment to see whether the same protected oaks are still proposed for removal.
- Planning officer correspondence to understand why the first scheme stalled.
- The consultation responses (Historic England, Hampshire County Council, Southern Water, Ecology, Tree Officer and others).
- Any public objections and whether the new application addresses them.
That would allow us to produce a forensic comparison showing exactly what has changed between 2019 and 2026. If the new scheme still proposes demolishing the Grange and removing protected oaks, but is now being considered favourably, we can identify the planning reasons for that change—or whether key concerns remain unresolved.
Direct comparison: Padnell Grange applications
I have compared the material currently accessible for:
- APP/19/00224 — 86 dwellings, submitted in 2019 and withdrawn in October 2024.
- APP/26/00332 — 90 dwellings, registered in June/July 2026 and currently pending.
A limitation is that Havant’s new public-register page is not exposing the individual 2026 plans and technical reports reliably through public web search. Therefore, some questions—particularly the exact number and identity of trees proposed for removal—cannot yet be answered conclusively from the application description alone.
Comparison table
| Issue | APP/19/00224 | APP/26/00332 | Apparent change |
| Applicant | Originally Bellway Homes; changed to The Borrow Foundation in April 2021 | Stonebond Properties (Guildford) Ltd and The Borrow Foundation | Stonebond has joined the landowner/foundation as development partner |
| Number of homes | 86 | 90 | Increase of four dwellings |
| Existing buildings | Explicit demolition of Padnell Grange and ancillary structures | Demolition of existing buildings | Demolition remains part of the proposal |
| Trees | Explicit removal of three TPO oak trees | Application description does not state how many protected trees would be removed | The precise 2026 tree loss must be confirmed from the Arboricultural Impact Assessment |
| Access | Existing access arrangements were part of the scheme | Upgraded access to Padnell Road expressly identified | Access design has apparently been revised |
| Drainage | Parking, landscaping, SuDS and other drainage works expressly listed | Landscaping and “other works”; drainage not mentioned in the short description | A drainage strategy will almost certainly accompany the application, but the short description is less specific |
| Heritage approach | Demolition proposed, despite later council concern that the Grange should be retained as a non-designated heritage asset | Demolition remains proposed | The central heritage conflict appears unresolved in principle |
| Outcome/status | Withdrawn in October 2024 without a decision | Pending | The first scheme was not refused |
| Planning context | Site was allocated for housing, with an indicative capacity in the region of 80–84 homes | Brought forward after further local-plan and design work | Residential development is supported in principle, but the detailed scheme must still satisfy policy |
The official weekly list confirms that APP/19/00224 proposed 86 dwellings, demolition of the Grange and ancillary structures, drainage works and removal of three TPO oak trees. It also confirms that the application was withdrawn, rather than refused.
Havant Borough Council
Planning Development Services
21st of October 2024
The 2026 application is for full planning permission for 90 dwellings, demolition of the existing buildings and an upgraded Padnell Road access. It was submitted jointly by Stonebond Properties and the Borrow Foundation and remains pending.
Havant Borough Council
Planning Development Services
2nd of July 20206
1. The principal change is not the amount of development
The number of homes has risen only slightly, from 86 to 90—an increase of approximately 4.7%.
That suggests the new application is not a fundamentally lower-density or less intensive alternative. Unless the site boundary has changed, it is likely to be at least as intensively developed as the 2019 scheme.
The more important changes are therefore likely to concern:
- the internal layout;
- access geometry;
- the relationship between houses and retained trees;
- drainage infrastructure;
- ecological mitigation;
- the proposed architectural treatment;
- evidence offered to justify demolition of the historic buildings.
2. Demolition of Padnell Grange remains proposed
This is perhaps the most significant point.
The earlier Bellway presentation argued that the buildings lacked sufficient historic or architectural value to prevent demolition. Bellway’s heritage consultant considered that the Grange had been altered and possessed limited historic, evidential and aesthetic value. The developer therefore argued that comprehensive redevelopment should not be constrained by retaining it.
Havant Borough Council
Site Location
22nd of January 2019
However, the council’s 2022 Housing Delivery Action Plan described the application as being subject to:
- “Protracted discussions regarding design and layout, and the need to retain Padnell Grange as a non-designated heritage asset.”
It also recorded the change of applicant from Bellway Homes to the Borrow Foundation in April 2021.
Havant Borough Council
Housing Delivery Action Plan – Meetings, agendas and minutes
13th of February 2022
This reveals a genuine difference of professional opinion:
- The developer’s position: the buildings had insufficient value to justify retention.
- The council’s recorded position during negotiations: Padnell Grange should be retained as a non-designated heritage asset.
The 2026 application still proposes demolition. Therefore, Stonebond’s new Heritage Statement needs to explain why demolition is now considered acceptable, notwithstanding the council’s earlier insistence on retention.
That explanation should address:
- What heritage significance is attributed to the Grange, cottage, barn and other structures?
- Has their condition materially deteriorated since 2019?
- Were genuine retention-and-conversion options tested?
- Would retaining the Grange reduce the housing yield or affect viability?
- What public benefit is claimed to outweigh the loss?
- Has the council altered its assessment of the building’s heritage value?
Until those questions are answered, it cannot safely be said that the previous heritage concern has been resolved.
Havant Borough Council
Planning Development Services
21st of October 2024
3. The protected-oak position is presently unclear
The 2019 proposal was unambiguous: it sought removal of three TPO oak trees.
Havant Borough Council
Planning Development Services
21st of October 2024
Bellway’s earlier presentation described those three trees as weaker specimens and claimed that:
- most protected trees would be retained;
- houses would be positioned to reduce tree overshadowing;
- changes in level would avoid root-protection areas;
- replacement trees would be planted.
Havant Borough Council
Site Location
22nd of January 2019
The 2026 application’s short description does not expressly mention removal of protected trees. That does not prove that all the oak trees are now being retained. Tree removal may instead be shown only in the tree schedule, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and proposed site plan.
The documents that need checking are:
- Tree Constraints Plan;
- Tree Retention and Removal Plan;
- Arboricultural Impact Assessment;
- Arboricultural Method Statement;
- proposed levels plan;
- drainage plan, particularly where drainage crosses root-protection areas;
- landscape masterplan.
The key comparison should identify each tree by its survey number and record:
| Required tree information | 2019 | 2026 |
| Total surveyed trees/groups | To verify | To verify |
| TPO trees retained | To verify | To verify |
| TPO oaks removed | 3 | Not yet confirmed |
| Other trees removed | To verify | To verify |
| Category A trees removed | To verify | To verify |
| Category B trees removed | To verify | To verify |
| Replacement trees proposed | To verify | To verify |
| Construction or drainage within root-protection areas | To verify | To verify |
It would therefore be premature to state publicly that the 2026 application definitely removes the same three oaks. A defensible formulation would be:
“The previous application expressly proposed removing three protected oak trees. The new application description does not specify the extent of tree removal, so the submitted arboricultural plans must be examined before it can be established whether those trees are now retained.”
4. The site has been considered suitable for housing for some time
The broader planning history does not presently support the proposition that the site itself has repeatedly been rejected as unsuitable for housing.
Council land-availability assessments identified Padnell Grange as a potential residential site of about 2.7 hectares, with a capacity of approximately 80 homes. They recognised constraints including:
- protected trees;
- proximity to a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation;
- possible land-contamination or ground-quality issues;
- archaeological potential;
- the adjoining golf course.
Havant Borough Council
Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 13th Edition
January 2021 (Corrected 5th March 2021)
Bellway’s consultation presentation also stated that the site was allocated for residential development, with an indicative capacity of approximately 84 homes.
Havant Borough Council
Site Location
22nd of January 2019
Therefore, the planning distinction is:
- The principle of housing: broadly supported through allocation and land assessments.
- A particular layout involving demolition and tree loss: subject to detailed objection and negotiation.
That is more accurate than saying housing at Padnell Grange was refused repeatedly.
5. Why the 2019 application probably stalled
No refusal notice or final officer report has been found. It would consequently be unsafe to invent formal “reasons for refusal.”
The strongest documented evidence is the council’s own description of:
- prolonged design and layout negotiations;
- the need to retain the Grange as a non-designated heritage asset;
- a change of applicant in 2021.
Havant Borough Council
Housing Delivery Action Plan – Meetings, agendas and minutes
13th of February 2022
The application then remained unresolved and was withdrawn in October 2024.
Havant Borough Council
Planning Development Services
21st of October 2024
A reasonable evidence-based conclusion is:
- APP/19/00224 appears to have stalled principally because the applicant’s demolition-led layout did not resolve council concerns about design and the retention of Padnell Grange. Tree, drainage, ecological and other technical matters were also relevant site constraints, but no published refusal establishes them as formal refusal reasons.
Withdrawal may have allowed a new development partner to prepare a fresh application without receiving a refusal that might be difficult to overcome at appeal.
That final sentence is an inference, not a documented explanation from the applicant or council.
6. What the new application must demonstrate
For the 2026 proposal to represent a genuinely improved scheme, its documents should demonstrate more than four additional houses and a revised access.
Heritage
The new Heritage Statement should provide a transparent significance assessment and a proper options appraisal for retention, partial retention and demolition.
Trees
It should identify exactly which protected oaks survive, which are lost and why development cannot be redesigned around them.
Ecology
It should assess the adjoining SINC, bats, nesting birds and other protected species, and calculate the scheme’s biodiversity net gain.
Drainage
The scheme should show that attenuation basins, pipes, outfalls and changes in level will not damage retained trees or worsen surface-water conditions.
Highways
The Transport Assessment should compare existing and proposed traffic, junction performance, pedestrian safety and construction access—not merely describe an “upgraded access.”
Housing composition
It should state:
- affordable-housing provision;
- tenure;
- bedroom mix;
- accessible/adaptable homes;
- density;
- building heights;
- parking provision.
Relationship with neighbours
The plans should demonstrate acceptable separation distances, boundary treatment, overlooking, loss of light and the relationship with Cherry Tree Avenue and other surrounding properties.
Overall finding
The new proposal is not yet shown to be a fundamentally different development.
What can presently be established is:
- the dwelling total has increased from 86 to 90;
- demolition remains proposed;
- the access is described as upgraded;
- Stonebond has joined the Borrow Foundation as applicant;
- the previous application’s explicit proposal to remove three protected oaks is not repeated in the new short description;
- the earlier application was withdrawn after prolonged negotiations, particularly over design and retention of the Grange;
- the site has long been treated as potentially suitable for housing, so the dispute concerns the form of development rather than housing in principle.
The most important unresolved issues are whether the protected oaks are being retained and what new justification is offered for demolishing a building the council previously said should be retained as a non-designated heritage asset.
Construction vehicles will undoubtedly be a significant problem for the surrounding roads including Padnell Road, Cherry Tree Avenue along with its adjacent roads and Hazleton Way and its adjacent roads.
Talking with neighbours, living close to the proposed site, they generally complain about the additional vehicle movements throughout the days and weeks following the site completion. In their view many more than what seems to be predicted.
Plus, there are the usual worries about doctor appointments, dental appointments, libraries, school places, local shops, bus routes, parking, the general infrastructure now and in the near future.
As it stands and on first appraisal it appears to be not such a good prospect for those living nearby or for those about to live there. Possibly not a good prospect for the trees near and far, the animals and birds. Difficult to know just who it’s going to be a best fit for given current proposals. Yes, it’ll be somewhere for some to live that’s true but again as it stands how long before they become stressed with their immediate surroundings if, as some firmly believe, personal space is being sacrificed on the altar of central government’s push for more housing. Heading towards societal sink maybe, sometimes referred to as “too many rats in one box”?
Having said all of that it is early days and maybe a good compromise to all the objections that are being raised may well bubble to the surface, after all that’s what we’re all here for. As and when more relevant information becomes available the aim is to publish here so that we all have good information with appropriate analysis allowing us all to have good debates leading to the best outcomes for all.
