FIGHT4FourMarks campaigners have won the battle to prevent high density backland development on a site in Telegraph Lane. The test case planning proposal, which could have marked the beginning of the end for the semi-rural character of Four Marks, has been lost at appeal. Just three weeks after a packed Public Inquiry at Medstead village hall, Planning Inspector Howard Rose has announced his decision to dismiss the appeal on two proposals by Antler Homes Wessex Ltd, to build 11 and 14 new dwellings respectively following the demolition of 54 to 56 Telegraph Lane. The Romsey-based property developer had appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against East Hampshire District Council's refusal to grant planning permission for the type of back garden infilling residents feared would "open the floodgates" to further intense "urban-style" cul de sac development. In a robust exchange of views, the appellant argued that the settlement policy boundary (SPB) approved in the Second Review of East Hampshire District Council's Local Plan, included the back gardens in Telegraph Lane, establishing the precedent for 'development in depth'. While the appeal site was indeed located within the SPB , EHDC argued that it did not mean that development should necessarily take place. Any development should harmonise with its surroundings and this would not. Having visited the appeal site on the day of the Public Inquiry (March 23), Mr Rose said he considered the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. While both the 11 and 14 home scheme would represent an efficient use of land, Mr Rose accepted that the existing development along Telegraph Lane was linear in nature and that the proposed 'development in depth' would, in his opinion, be "wholly out of keeping". It would, he said, "cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area". Mr Rose also noted that, if successful, the appeal applications would change the nature of development in the area, setting a precedent for similar schemes. He was aware, he said, of an application for nine dwellings pending at 37 Telegraph Lane. "The appellant argues that the precedent has already been set for development of the type proposed by virtue of the generous depth of the SPB, which includes the full plots of the dwellings here", said Mr Rose who agreed with councillors that respecting the character and form of existing development should override this argument. He was aware that Four Marks Parish Council had fought, and lost, at the Public Inquiry into the Local Plan, the battle to have the gardens of properties in Telegraph Lane withdrawn from the SPB for fear of backland development which, councillors felt, could potentially "destroy the character of the area." In arguing the question of precedent, Mr Rose dismissed other examples, given by the appellant of backland development at Boyneswood Road and Lymington Bottom Road, as being linked to previous development and not the same as the Telegraph Lane application. He said that, in his view, if the appeal applications were to be allowed "they could make it difficult for the council (EHDC) to resist other similar proposals which would compound the harm, and damage the pleasing spacious sylvan quality of Telegraph Lane". The decision has served to restore local confidence in the planning process with campaigners claiming success for 'people power' and Four Marks councillors relieved at the Inspector's support for their well-formulated policy based arguments. In expressing both relief and jubilation, they are hoping that the result will draw a halt to those 'in depth' proposals which have been threatening to "destroy the identity" of the village. Four Marks Parish Council chairman, Bryan Timms, believes this test case will achieve that result. He feels the outcome to be a 'feather in the cap' for both parish and district councillors who fought a strong case, based on sound planning policy, with clear reference to the Village Design Statement. It was, he said, "a test case not just for Four Marks but for the whole of East Hampshire" - a fact acknowledged by the Inspector's uncharacteristically swift decision - indicative, Mr Timms believes, of the number of applicants waiting on the result. Fight4FourMarks campaigner Ingrid Thomas said: "This is a fantastic result for Four Marks. We hope the rest of the applicants in waiting will take note and realise that developers will have to produce really good sensitive plans which will improve and not destroy our village."