Agenda Item Agenda Item 7 Report PC1/16 Report to Planning Committee Date 21 January 2016 By Director of Planning Local Authority East Hampshire District Council Application Nos SDNP/14/02026/FUL & SDNP/14/05926/FUL Applicant Mr J Cullen Applications Erection of 5 semi-detached log cabins (10 units) and siting of shepherd huts as part of farm diversification and associated parking area, with new vehicular access onto Blacknest Road (SDNP/14/02026/FUL) Replacement barn to be used as café, farm shop and cycle hire and new access (SDNP/14/05926/FUL ) Address Broad View Farm, Blacknest Road, Blacknest, Alton, GU34 4PX
Recommendation: 1) That planning permission SDNP/14/02026/FUL (Log Cabins) be refused for the reasons set out in Paragraph 10.1of this report. 2) That planning permission SDNP/14/05926/FUL (Farm Shop) be refused for the reasons set out in Paragraph 10.2 of this report.
Executive Summary The consideration of the two applications have been incorporated into one report to avoid confusion and provide greater clarity of the comprehensive proposals for the site (and how the two separate components can be considered in isolation and cumulatively). The history of these applications has been complex and resulted in significant correspondence between the case officer and the applicants with significant local interest in the proposals. The application for the lodge was submitted originally and has undergone amendments since the original submission. The application for the farm shop followed at a later date. After extensive discussions, the applicant amended plans for both applications to achieve a compatibility between the 2 schemes (mainly in relation to parking provision and position of the café/farm shop building). Subsequently, at the end of 2015 the applicant submitted a further amendment which provided an additional parking area of 11 spaces within the site. The current plans for both applications allows provision for parking that does not overlap or contradict either application. (The acceptability or otherwise of the provision or layout in each case is considered in more detail in the main body of the report.). The proposals now before members for consideration are set out in the descriptions above but for ease of reference SDNP14/02026/FUL is for 10 holiday units (in 5 cabins), shepherd huts, parking, access and landscaping. SDNP14/05926/FUL is for a café/farm shop (in a new agricultural building replacing a building which formerly was located at the site). The application for the café/farm shop also includes parking alongside the parking for the proposed lodges. The principle of rural economic development is generally supported within the East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy (Policy CP6) for farm diversification schemes, and this includes tourism
11 accommodation and farm shops. The policy is underpinned by the need for such development not to harm the character of the surroundings and the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. In particular, within the park such development should contribute to conserving and enhancing its natural beauty, promote opportunities for the understanding and the enjoyment of its qualities, improving the viability of rural businesses, and/or providing local services for local people. In this particular case the consideration for the proposals requires firstly an understanding of the existing rural enterprise within the site and how this development would contribute to that enterprise. Secondly consideration would then need to be given as to whether the introduction of the proposed elements would adversely affect the landscape character of the area and the purposes of the National Park. It is considered, that the proposals would, on balance, not conserve the natural landscape beauty of the surrounding area by virtue of the extensive parking required even though it is appreciated that the proposals would create opportunities for enjoyment and understanding of the National Park. Concern is also raised, based on the nature of the existing agricultural enterprise, whether the proposals could reasonably be considered as a form of agricultural diversification and therefore whether they comply with policy. The application is placed before the Committee due to the significant number of representations received on both applications.
1. Site Description 1.1 The planning application site forms a small part of Broadview Farm, a 50 hectare sheep farm in Binsted near Alton at the north eastern edge of the SDNP. It is located to the west of Blacknest Road approximately 1.8 km north east of Binsted. It lies in the bottom of a valley with a steep slope on the western side which is adjacent to the western boundary of South Downs Integrated Landscape Character Assessment the character area K3: Alice Holt Mixed Farmland and Woodland. 1.2 The site is 3.5 hectares and with a stream running from North West to south east through the middle and a small pond just outside the application site. There are a number of mature oak trees on the site but some trees around the pond including 2 willows have been storm damaged. 1.3 The application site contains Broadview Farm Dismantled Railway Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), a locally-designated site containing a rich flora situated to the north of the proposed development but also immediately adjacent to the existing access track 1.4 The applicant’s residential property, Broadview Farm, is to the north of the main part of the site. An access track leads from the side of the dwelling to a group of agricultural buildings to the south east. 1.5 Blacknest Business Park is located to the east with a line of poplars on the southern boundary. There is pasture and woodland to south, north and west. There is a public right of way immediately to the north of the site and a path to the east which runs through the business park. 1.6 To the west is agricultural farmland associated with Broadview Farm which is grazed by sheep rising westwards to a wooded hanger. The close range surrounding landscape is pastoral in character with areas of woodland, thick hedgerows, tree belts and field trees. 1.7 Access to the site is a via a single track from Blacknest Road which runs past the business park to the south east and Broad View Farmhouse to the north west. 1.8 On the north east side of the road opposite Broad View Farmhouse is a row of dwellings and on the south east side of Blacknest Road to the south west of Broad View Farmhouse is a detached property (Broadview Cottage).
2. Relevant Planning History 2.1 SDNP/12/01951/APNW – Agricultural Prior Notification application for re-levelling part of
12 site to allow grazing for pregnant sheep – Further details not required – 4 October 2012. 2.2 The full applications for consideration are the only relevant applications in relation to the site. However it is worth noting that the application proposals before members for consideration are different from that for which the applicant submitted originally. The application(s) have both undergone a number of changes to arrive at the schemes presented for consideration now.
2.3 SDNP/14/02026/FUL April 2014 – Application submitted: Description: Creation of fishing lake, land re- profiling and erection of 7 semi-detached log cabins (total 14 units) to support outdoor tourism as part of farm diversification with new vehicular access onto Blacknest Road to serve farm and cabins. Amendments to scheme made and application re-advertised: Amended Description: Erection of 5 semi-detached log cabins (10 Units), and siting of Shepherd Huts and campsite to support seasonal outdoor tourism (1 April to 31 October) as part of farm diversification and associated parking area, with new vehicular access onto Blacknest Road. (Main changes to original submission included loss of fishing lake, reduction from 14 units to 10 units, introduction of shepherd huts and also camping facility) Current Scheme Description: Erection of 5 semi-detached log cabins (10 units) and siting of shepherd huts as part of farm diversification and associated parking area, with new vehicular access onto Blacknest Road. (Main changes to the scheme included the loss of the camping area). Additional amendment to scheme made in early December 2015: Description remains but amendment comprises additional parking area with 11 spaces on eastern boundary adjacent to industrial Estate. 2.4 SDNP/14/05926/FUL November 2014 – Application submitted; Description: Replacement barn to be used as café, farm shop and cycle hire, conversion of existing stable building to shower block and new access and parking area. (It is important to note that the original plans were not compatible with the lodges application in that the parking areas overlapped). Currently amended Plans submitted: Description: Replacement barn to be used as a café, farm shop and cycle hire and new access. (Main changes included a larger footprint for the café building to provide screening to the parking area, loss of the shower facility building (due to the removal of the camping facility from the lodge application and amendment of the parking area to provide compatibility with the plans for the lodge application). Additional amendment to scheme made in early December 2015: Description remains but amendment comprises additional parking area with 11 spaces on eastern boundary adjacent to industrial Estate. 2.5 The current plans are considered to provide greater compatibility between the two applications in relation to clarity of parking provision for the two elements (irrespective of the acceptability or otherwise of the parking provision and its impact on the surrounding locality)
3. Proposal 3.1 SDNP/14/02026/FUL (Lodges) - The applicant seeks permission on the first application for the siting of 5 buildings comprising 10 holiday units with additional shepherd huts and parking and access. The access would be provided at the eastern edge of the site adjacent to the industrial estate and would lead to a parking area for visitors staying in the lodges. 3.2 Each cabin building (5 in total) would provide two units of accommodation amounting to 10 lodges. These would be located at the foot of the valley adjacent to a line of trees on the boundary with the industrial estate to the north. The shepherd’s huts would be located to the south east of the cabins.
13 3.3 The applicant considers that the introduction of the tourist accommodation alongside the working farm would allow visitors to experience the changing seasons of the National Park as well as getting a broad experience of the working calendar of the sheep farm. 3.4 The accommodation would be used from 1 April to 31 October and also over the Christmas and New Year period. Were members minded to approve the application, it is considered that the periods of use could be adequately dealt with by condition. 3.5 The proposals do not include any outdoor lighting neither does the applicant intend to introduce any external lighting in order to protect the surrounding dark skies. 3.6 SDNP/15/05926/FUL The applicant seeks permission for a café/ farm shop which would also provide cycle hire exclusively for visitors staying in the holiday accommodation. The new building would be located close to existing farm buildings to the south of the residential property (Broadview Farm). Parking for this proposal would be provided in a parking area (which would also form part of the area for visitor parking for the lodge accommodation). 3.7 The proposals have been put forward by the applicant in order to seek to provide a point of stop providing café facilities for walker s and cyclists. The new building is intended to also sell local produce.
4. Consultations 4.1 Archaeology – No objection subject to conditions (both applications) 4.2 Bentley Parish Council – Object to both applications Additional traffic and parking congestion this holiday village would create which would impact on the village. Insufficient parking facilities on the proposed site to cope with the number cars per unit. This could potentially cause an overspill of parking onto the roadside outside the property boundary, which would be a danger to cyclists and pedestrians 4.3 Binsted Parish Council – Object to both applications Lodges: Environmental impact on of cabin size and appearance in an area of outstanding natural beauty as defined by the South Downs National Park Farm shop: The application cannot be shown to not increase the danger to highway user 4.4 Drainage – No objection subject to conditions (both applications) 4.5 Ecology – No objection (both applications) Earlier concerns about ecological information with application. Concerns overcome by additional information submitted by the applicant. 4.6 Environment Agency – No objection Earlier objection based on adequacy of Flood Risk Assessment Objection withdrawn on receipt of additional information/assessment 4.7 Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) – No objection subject to conditions (both applications) 4.8 Environmental Health (Pollution) – No objection subject to conditions Lodges Application: There is potential for noise from holiday makers on site but I do not consider this to be significant and is unlikely to significantly impact on residential properties. Concern has been expressed about smoke emissions. There is a possibility of smoke from wood burning stoves, fire pits or barbecues associated with the holiday units. The holiday units are proposed to be used between April and October, when wood burning stoves are less likely to be used for significant periods. Air quality objective values are unlikely to be breached and significant adverse impacts on residential properties are not anticipated. If permission is granted a site license under the Caravan Sites and Control of 14 Development Act 1960 would be required from Environmental Health. Farm Shop Application: Can see no specific reference to wood burning stoves. If these are proposed they would be subject to Building Regulations. Potential for impacts from noise, and also emissions to air, depending upon the type of catering. Recommend conditions on any approval 4.9 Highways – No objection subject to conditions (Consultation on both applications) The Technical Note submitted by the Applicants Highway consultants considered a number of matters which were raised by the Highway Authority in earlier responses to the application. Within the Technical Note car parking levels were discussed and the Highway Authority took the view that the levels of parking for the café and farm shop should accord with the maximum adopted standards requiring 27 spaces based upon this site being in a rural location the majority of trips would thus be by private car and also in relation to previous experience with such facilities which confirm that these types of uses can be very popular destinations. On that basis, the Highway Authority stated a requirement for 39 spaces (given the requirement for 12 spaces in connection with the holiday accommodation) whilst only 26 had been provided for within the plans at the time. The Highway Authority were concerned that any overflow parking would occur on the access road in an uncontrolled manner which could lead to obstructed access for emergency and service vehicles. A revised plan has been submitted which shows a further 11 spaces to be constructed of grass-crete away from the main parking area. This location is considered to be acceptable subject to a footway link between the proposed parking area and the facility area to ensure pedestrian safety. This could be constructed of materials acceptable in a rural location. Other than the bell mouth at the access the remainder of the infrastructure would not be adopted by the Highway Authority. The Technical Note included a drawing based upon the extended topographical site survey showing the required visibility splays of 2.4m x 120 metres. This indicated that the full splays were available and located within land owned by the applicant or within the existing highway verge/limits. Hedges/planting adjacent to the highway verge particularly within visibility splays are required to be trimmed back by the land owner or maintained by the Highway Authority. To ensure that adequate visibility splays is achievable at the location of the proposed access a further joint site visit was undertaken on 22 December 2015. This included setting out of the required visibility splays and it was concluded that with the removal of the existing boundary hedge to the right on the exit (required to establish the proposed access) that the required visibility is achievable. Visibility to the left on the exit is also acceptable with the brow of the hill being located just beyond the extent of the splay and therefore approaching vehicles are within vision for the length of the splay. With the straight alignment of Blacknest Road over the length of the required splays forward visibility of vehicles turning in or out of the access is also appropriate to the speed limit. There is no doubt that this development will generate additional trips on the local highway network and there is a requirement to mitigate the impact of those additional movements to ensure the operation and safety of that network are not compromised. Whilst the SDNPA Authority do not currently operate CIL, the County Council as Local Highway Authority consistently apply an established Transport Contributions Policy which seeks contributions towards identified schemes which may benefit the site. The contribution is based on the number of daily trips to be generated by the development. In this instance as the calculation has been adjusted to have regard of the seasonal basis of the proposal. Accordingly a sum of £18,879 has been identified and this contribution would be taken towards the implementation of the Blacknest and Bentley Corridor Traffic Management Strategy with an overall estimated cost of £220,000. It is anticipated that the 15 contribution sum would fall due for payment before the use of the development is commenced. 4.10 Landscape (Consultation on both applications) Farm shop building: Given the sites visibility from two footpaths the sympathetic integration of the proposed development is crucial. Proposal to site the car parking behind the proposed barn is a good approach and will assist in screening the car park in views from the west and south. The increased size of the barn would result in a further extension southwards of the group of farm buildings thus increasing the massing of built form. Provided that an adequate and appropriate landscape scheme is proposed the impact could be adequately mitigated. An alternative option to further increasing the barn by a strong landscape buffer along the edge of the parking area could be incorporated to provide the required screening. Lodges: The lodges are located away from the main complex within an open field which forms part of the wider rolling pastoral landscape. The field is separated from the existing farm complex and industrial area by a strong edge comprising the route of a dismantled railway line with an adjacent line of tree planting and a strong belt of mature trees and shrub planting adjacent to the industrial estate. The proposed siting of the lodges within the open field feels disjointed and intrudes into the pastoral landscape. A preferred location for the lodges would be to the north east of the dismantled railway. Shepherd Huts: The area of the site identified is relatively enclosed by surrounding vegetation and thus is likely to have a lower visual impact on users of the adjacent Public Rights of Way (PROWs). Similar concerns that this area does not have a strong relationship with the farm complex and would question the practicality of accessing this area, given its distance from the farm complex. Additional Parking Area: The proposals to locate extra parking spaces along the entrance road as part of an amended plan are poorly related to the overall proposals for the site. The proposal to extend the proposed parking over two specific areas would be detrimental to local rural character. Parking alongside the driveway itself would create large areas of surfacing in the site entrance which would also be detrimental to rural character. It is recommended that the proposals are revised to accommodate all of the parking requirement within a single area if possible and certainly away from the main entrance drive. 4.11 Waste & Recycling – Comments (both applications) This is a commercial operation and will not be serviced by a domestic waste collection service. Owners will need to set up commercial waste collection service and access for this should be considered as part of the planning service. 5. Representations 5.1 1 Letter of objection with 31 signatories. Purpose 1 of National Park No evidence to show how this proposal conserves or enhances the natural beauty, wildlife or cultural heritage of the area. The location of this development is regarded as being of high landscape value. Both residents and consultees have agreed the development will have an enormous impact on the visual quality of the landscape. Proposed new buildings are not sensitively integrated into the landscape. The café/farm shop is over large and a dominant feature in the landscape. Cabins are arranged with no attempt to screen them or integrate them into the landscape. No buildings are of a local vernacular. The applicant stated that the design was modelled
16 on now removed agricultural buildings, which were army barracks. The layout of buildings appears urban and at odds with the rural landscape. Removal of the old barns before submitting the application has removed the opportunity to assess the importance to wildlife species or to judge the acceptability of the new building as a replacement. The original ecological surveys did not investigate fully the area around the barns and were inadequate in identifying potential damage to wildlife. New barn cannot be described as a replacement as its scale and prominence is far greater than the buildings it is supposed to be replacing. Landscape Officer confirms the development will be visible from the footpath and higher ground of the hangers. There are still no details of the design or layout of the shepherd huts. The huts would have no provision for storage of cycles and associated holiday paraphernalia which could have an impact on the landscape. Lack of information on toilet facilities, washing facilities and waste disposal for the shepherd huts. Hedge is described as being less than 10 years old but is over 20 years old and provides an acceptable transit route for dormouse dispersal within the landscape. It is clear from the guidance from Natural England and Defra that a survey should have taken place. Despite repeated requests by the County Ecologist for the issue of New Zealand pygmy weed to be taken seriously no measures have been put in place to prevent its transfer to the wider environment. Trees will provide little meaningful screening for a considerable amount of time. Applicant has not shown how the proposal meets CP6. Opportunities to visit and stay do not outweigh the negatives impacts. Policy 13 of SDNP farming policies is difficult to reconcile with this scheme. Scale and type of development is inappropriate. Sustainability of such a small holding to continue in agricultural production must be in question. No other agriculture based activity appears to have been considered as an alternative. In attempting to solve one problem, the applicant has presented another with the visual impact of the additional parking. The applicants claim that there are no public footpaths and the new access is only exposed to motorists is ludicrous. The road is used by walkers, cyclist’s and horse riders. Additional parking will be highly visible from Blacknest Road. The Landscape officer confirms that the barn could be adequately mitigated by a landscape scheme but no scheme has been proposed. Purpose 2 of the National Park No evidence to show that the proposal would fulfil this purpose. Every potential amenity is adequately provided elsewhere. In contrast to other local farm experiences, there are no farm based activities listed within the supporting documentation, all of the activities are located away from the farm. If there were a proven need for accommodation, there is no evidence to show why this could not be provided elsewhere in a less sensitive location. How would visitors be able to experience the general workings of the farm when there is no activity taking place for 5 months of the year? Concern that increased use of rights of way in poor ground conditions will render them impassable.
17 Question practicality of having no walkways to enable guests to access their cabins. Additional traffic will impact on enjoyment of area by cyclists and walkers. Noise by large number of visitors will impact on the quiet enjoyment of the footpath (55). Duty of the National Park Despite claims that the development will be beneficial to local businesses, since the inclusion of the café/shop application there have been no supporting comments from businesses. No engagement with the community on the proposals since the first application was made. Concern that the influx of large number of visitors will swamp the identity of the small community. Applicant has not stated the opening hours of the café/shop. No noise assessment has been provided as part of this application. Concern about the impact on air quality. No confirmation of the fuel that will heat the buildings. No coherent lighting assessment submitted. No form of renewable energy included in the proposals. Owners of the units on the industrial estate concerned that their activities may be curtailed. At least two businesses will leave the area should the application be granted. Applicant remains unclear as to how many jobs would be created by the development. Concern as to proximity of the new development to existing residential properties. Transport, traffic and parking No quantitative evidence or examples of similar developments where the train has been used to access the site at a level where sustainability can be acceptably claimed. Not sure what incentives will be provided to induce sustainable behaviour by visitors. Arriving by train will not only be limiting but more expensive and time consuming. Applicant has significantly underestimated the amount of traffic the developments will generate. Locations chosen as comparisons are not comparable. Conflict between the management plan and the traffic note in relation to the use of the café/shop. Concerns about increase in visitor numbers to Alice Holt from this development. Parking Concern that the site will become an overflow car park for Alice Holt. Underestimation of the parking provision that the development will require. 12 allocated spaces for accommodation is insufficient. No delineation of where the various activities will take place in the farm shop building. Realisation and acceptance of the need for additional spaces is an acceptance of the unsustainable location in transport terms. No provision for parking of minibus to ferry visitors or parking provision for service vehicles. No footway provided from the new parking to the facilities listed. Danger to public and guests. Concern that the adjacent field will become an overflow car park/
18 Visibility Splays Despite splays being accepted by the Highways Officer contend that the applicant cannot show that the visibility splays can be achieved. Visibility is obscured by a hedge belonging to a third party. No kerb marking on the current plan. On the recent plan to avoid the hedge, the splays appear to have been pulled forward into the roadway. Using either the original or the amended plans the splays could be blocked by the hedge. General Comments Flood Risk Assessment still makes reference to a lake so how can the FRA be acceptable if the modelling is not correct. The solution of dealing with surface water is questioned by the Drainage Officer. The Drainage officer states foul drainage should be discharged into a public foul sewer. Applicant remains unsure as to how it will be dealt with. No toilet facilities for the café/shop. Application does not include a noise assessment or lighting assessment. Little detail on farm diversification. No community engagement. 5.2 A significant number of representations have been received during the many iterations of the application since the initial submission. The number of representations as each stage is set out below. A summary of the issues raised in these representations is also set out below: 70 Objections to Initial Lodges Scheme: 51 Letters of support to Initial Lodges Scheme: 31 Objections to Amended Lodges Scheme (with lake removed) 0 Letters of support to Amended Lodges Scheme (with lake removed) 30 Objections to Amended Lodges Scheme (with camping removed and compatible parking) 7 Letters of support to Amended Lodges Scheme (with camping removed and compatible parking) 18 objections to Current Plans for Lodges Application 2 Letter of Support for Current Plans for Lodges Application 44 Objections to Initial Café/Farm Shop Application 0 Letters of support to Initial Café/Farm Shop application 26 Objections to amended Café/Farm Shop Application (with compatible parking) 5 Letters of support to amended Café/Farm Shop Application (with compatible parking) 15 Objections to current plans for Café/Farm Shop 0 Letters of support current plans for Café/Farm Shop Highways/Access Parking Blacknest Road is a busy road. Significant number of vehicles exceed the 40mph speed limit. More traffic will be generated by the development (also taking into account recently approved development at Bordon). Road is generally used as a rat-run. Inadequate parking provision, leading to on-road parking. There are no footpaths along the road and so the location is not suitable for walking. Splays for the access go onto land not owned by the applicant. No provision for staff parking No spaces allocated for deliveries or service vehicles. 19 Blacknest Road is a busy rat-run Increase in potential vehicles to Alice Holt would be unsustainable. Inadequate visibility splays. Amended plans showing splays do not relate to physical measurements on the ground. Applicant is proposing splays over which he has no control. Transport assessment and travel plan should have been required. Applicants suggestion of using site as base to visit Reading or Southampton by train show lack of knowledge of feasibility/practicalities of being able to do this on public transport from the application site. Partnership Management Plan states that future tourism and recreation facilities should build on existing gateways, hubs and sustainable transport which this site fails to do due to lack of connectivity. Heavily reliant on vehicles. Access Road does not allow cars to pass with ease. Not clear how applicant has derived formula for parking spaces provided. Spaces do not differentiate between proposed uses in new building. Parking spaces of less than 1 per lodge or shepherds hut is insufficient. Given the need for increased additional parking, this suggests there will be an increase in traffic movements on a dangerous road. No suitable footpath around the car park to enable users to walk to the shop or holiday lets. Potential safety hazard. Additional spaces are still insufficient and could result in overflow parking on Blacknest Road. Applicant has sought to increase parking as opposed to reducing the proposals. Highways contribution should be based on vehicle movements all year round as the farm shop is not a seasonal operation. Agricultural Diversification/Viability/Justification As far as aware applicant does not farm land and rents out field to a sheep farmer. Question how this scheme will strengthen sustainability of park communities and enterprises. Farm is merely a title to qualify the renting out of small pasture and therefore hardly a working farm. Proposals become far greater than original use so as to be a change of use. What will applicant be selling and where will he be sourcing produce? Nothing produced on the farm will be sold there. Lack of clarity over the use of current farm buildings given the applicants desire to continue farming. There are only four buildings on the applicants land, one would assume for agricultural purposes. Given the proposed uses, it is questioned what facilities will remain for agriculture. Requirement for so many parking spaces and removal of existing farm buildings shows move away from agriculture. No need for additional café in the area. No need for cycle hire given similar service available at Alice Holt. Would not be providing employment opportunities. Replacement barn would indicate reduction in farming activity. No evidence that the scheme would be viable. If scheme is not viable short step to residential properties. No demonstrated need for such an amenity. Already plenty of holiday accommodation in the area and also farm shops/coffee shops.
20 Compatibility with neighbouring uses. Could possibly hinder industrial activity next door. Incompatible relationship. Whilst a need for visitor accommodation is recognised, high quality is a priority and location of this site would preclude this (alongside an industrial unit). Previously application refused for Nursery on Industrial estate due to inadequate parking, danger to road users and inappropriate development alongside industrial units. Inappropriate development considering residential nature of Blacknest Road. Proposed parking would be highly visible from the property Broadview Cottage. Light pollution would occur. Additional use of access and track would impact on owners of Broadview Cottage. Light & Noise Pollution Light and noise pollution caused by increased activity. Holiday visitors make more noise than residents Impact on Dark Skies Light pollution will affect wildlife Ecology Survey for newts should be undertaken Proposals will upset ecological balance. Landscape & Design Landscape would be affected by proposed development. Increased use of the footpath would affect its condition. Conflict between park purposes. Agriculture created the landscape. Without the agriculture what will the landscape become? The proposal would introduce a significant development and activity altering the established character and pattern of agricultural field interspersed with woodland. Whilst it is accepted that the proposals would be viewed from the higher levels against the roofs of the adjacent industrial estate, this does not mitigate the visual impact of the proposal. The access would create a further scar on the landscape. Re-profiling of the dismantled railway would destroy the existing habitat. Assume that Shepherd huts will be static now that shower building has been removed from proposals. The lodges are out of keeping and ugly spoiling the natural valley. Proposals are contrary to Para 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Poorly conceived design with little done to screen lodges from the footpath. Shepherd huts are out of character. The café/farm shop does not appear to have provision for toilet facilities. 2 developments in close proximity refused and withdrawn due to similar issues. No community support. Environmental Impact of the cabins by virtue of site and appearance in an AONB. Formation of lengthy tarmac access road, hardstanding and ‘service’ area would harm the intrinsic beauty of the area. Loss of hedgerow to provide visibility splays would cause harm to the landscape character of the area. In seeking to solve the parking provision the applicant has created a problem in 21 adversely impacting further on the landscape, adding an urban feel to Blacknest Road. Proposed parking areas (including new 11 additional spaces) would be seen from the main road and the SDNP to the west resulting in erosion of the landscape. There is no screening shown to hide the car park or blend it into the countryside. The new car park sits on higher land than the public highway. Low hedges and open drives mean the carp park will be visible despite limited attempt at screening. New parking area is adjacent to Industrial estate and will contribute to slow urbanisation of this rural area. Amendment will render another area of an already small holding useless for grazing. Area is a beautiful landscape and grasscrete areas and large buildings will spoil this. Field next to the track could become an overflow car park. Any form of new landscaping would detract from the natural beauty of the local area. Even if the new parking area is to be screened this will take time to be effective and unless non-native species are used it will not be effective throughout the year. Sandford Principle should apply if there is a conflict between the purposes of the park. No mention of signage which would have an impact on the street scene. Discrepancies/Comments on application form and plans. Confusing having 2 applications for what is clearly one project. No mention of servicing for the development and how this will be achieved Opening times for the café/shop not indicated Inaccuracies in application form (work has started, there will be a new access, waste will be produced, there is no asbestos present, the site is prone to flooding, there will be commercial waste, there will be a gain in residential units seeing as lodges will be used 365 days a year, there will be employees, no hours of opening detailed, ventilation details required, development will be seen from a public footpath). Environmental Impact Assessment should have been required. Not a sustainable location – only accessible by car. No reference to energy sustainability. No commitment to recycle waste. Proposals fail to show proposed levels. Further ecological survey should have been required. No air quality or ventilation assessment has been submitted. Previously applicant wanted visitors to start or end their visit at the site hence the need for café etc., but is now saying these facilities are purely for those using the lodges. Unclear whether farm shop/café will be seasonal as well as the holiday lets. Whole process falls short of what planning should be. Without necessary comprehensive information, it is difficult to put forward a full and considered opinion. Still not clear whether the applicant wants to proceed with either one or both of the applications. 5.3 Letters of support for the following reasons Lots of effort made in minimising any negative impact. Sympathetic to surroundings and will only enhance the area. Whilst there is a moderate amount of traffic along Blacknest Road, there are traffic calming measures in place. Do not see there being an increase in traffic. The Lodges would not be visible from the road and only limited from other properties. Visitors will be able to enjoy life in the countryside.
22 The farm shop would serve locals and would mean they would not have to travel by car to other more distant retail shops. Wider benefits to the area increasing business in pubs, takeaways, Alice Holt, horse riding, fishing lake, golf course. Not much in the way of affordable visitor accommodation in the local area. Will bring tourists to the area, having a positive impact on local business Will provide holiday jobs for local people. 6. Planning Policy Context 6.1 Applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plans in this area comprises the Saved Policies of the East Hampshire District Local Plan (Second Review) 2006 and the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014). The relevant policies to this proposal are set out below. National Park Purposes 6.2 The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are: To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas; To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas. 6.3 If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social well-being of the local community in pursuit of these purposes. National Planning Policy Framework and Circular 2010 6.4 Government policy relating to National Parks is set out in English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 and The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was issued and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The Circular and NPPF confirm that National Parks have the highest status of protection and the NPPF states at paragraph 115 that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the national parks and that the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations and should also be given great weight in National Parks. 6.5 The development plan policies listed below have been assessed for their compliance with the NPPF and are considered to be complaint with the NPPF. 6.6 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December 2013. It sets out a Vision and long term Outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year Policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. The SDPMP is a material consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending adoption of the SDNP Local Plan. Relevant policies are 1, 3, 13, 14, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 & 55. 6.7 Policy 1 seeks to conserve and enhance the natural beauty and special qualities of the landscape and its setting, in ways that allow it to continue to evolve and become more resilient to the impacts of climate change and other pressures. 6.8 Policy 3 seeks to protect and enhance tranquility and dark night skies. 6.9 Policy 13 seeks to support the financial viability of farm businesses through appropriate infrastructure and diversification developments. 6.10 Policy 14 seeks to develop the market for and production of sustainable food, drink and other products. 6.11 Policy 29 seeks to enhance the health and wellbeing of residents and visitors by encouraging, supporting and developing the use of the Park as a place for healthy outdoor activity and relaxation. 6.12 Policy 35 seeks to promote and enhance integrated travel provision from rail stations located at gateways and within the Park for pedestrians, cyclists and bus travel.
23 6.13 Policies 37 and 39 seek to encourage cycling and manage vehicle parking. 6.14 Policy 40 seeks to manage the highway network and its infrastructure to integrate it more effectively into the landscape and reduce the impact of traffic on communities and visitors. 6.15 Policy 41 seeks to maintain visitor enjoyment and influence visitor behavior in order to reduce impacts on the special qualities of the Park (and increase spend in and around the Park). 6.16 Policy 42 Seeks to develop a consistent and coordinated approach to promoting and marketing of the Park as a sustainable visitor destination. 6.17 Policy 43 seeks to support the development and maintenance of appropriate recreation and tourism facilities and visitor hubs, in and around the Park, including a mix of quality accommodation which responds to market demands and supports a sustainable visitor economy. 6.18 Policy 55 seeks to promote opportunities for diversified economic activity in the Park, in particular where it enhances the special qualities. 6.19 Policy 49 seeks to maintain and improve access to a range of essential community services and facilities for communities in the National Park.
7. Planning Policy 7.1 The following saved policies of the East Hants District Local Plan Second Review 2006 are relevant to this proposal: C6 – Tree Preservation C13 – Rural Diversification HE19 – Ancient Tracks and Lane, Environmental Improvements T2 – Public Transport Provision and improvement T3 – Pedestrians and Cyclists T4 - Pedestrians and Cyclists E2 – Renewable Energy IB3 - Industrial or business development in the countryside S6 – The control of shops on farms TM1 – Tourism Development TM3 – Visitor Accommodation outside settlement Policy boundaries R1 – Outdoor space and recreation 7.2 The relevant policies of the East Hampshire District Joint Core Strategy (2014) are: CP1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development CP2 – Spatial Strategy CP6 – Rural Economy and Enterprise CP9 – Tourism CP19 – Development in the Countryside CP20 – Landscape CP21 – Biodiversity CP22 – Internationally designated sites CP25 – Flood risk CP27 – Pollution CP29 – Design CP31 – Transport
7.3 The South Downs National Park Preferred Options Local Plan was approved by Members at Committee on 16 July 2015 to go out for public consultation in September. The
24 consultation period has now ended and responses received will be considered by the Authority. The next stage in the plan preparation will then be the proposed submission. Until this time, the Preferred Options Local Plan is a material consideration in the assessment of this planning application in accordance with paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which confirm that weight can be given to policies in emerging plans following publication. Based on the early stage of preparation the policies within the Preferred Options Local Plan are currently afforded limited weight. The following policies are considered to be of relevance to this application: SD1, SD2, SD4WW, SD5, SD6, SD8, SD9, SD12, SD17, SD18, SD19, SD20, SD22, SD27, SD31, SD37, SD41, SD42, SD44, SD47, SD51, SD54 & SD59
8. Planning Assessment Introduction 8.1 The consideration of the applications primarily focusses on the principle of the schemes and whether they accord with the adopted policies in relation to tourism and farm diversification and whether the scheme meets the purposes and duty of the National Park. 8.2 The key issues in this case are therefore:- The principle of development The impact of the proposals on the landscape and on the character of the adjacent Conservation Area Impact of the proposals on Highways. Impact of the proposals on Ecology within the site Impact on flood risk Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and uses. Principle of Development 8.3 Lodges: The principle of visitor accommodation outside settlement boundaries is mentioned in Saved Policy TM3 of the Local Plan Second Review 2006 where it confirms, amongst other things, that it will only be permitted where it involves primarily the conversion of rural buildings, particularly those on working farms however Saved Policy C13 does allow for an enterprise as part of farm diversification in the countryside. This is subject to the criteria that where a new building is required it should be sited within an existing group of buildings. In addition, the proposal should not harm the character of the local landscape or other local amenity and the traffic generated should not be of a type or volume that would cause harm to users of the highway or the character of rural roads. The landscape and highway issues are considered later in the report but the issue of location of new buildings requires further consideration. 8.4 The proposal is for holiday cabins and as part of the consideration one must have regard to whether the location in amongst the small group of agricultural buildings would be practical or compatible with the agricultural enterprise which is undertaken at the site. In addition, consideration must be given to the amenity impacts of locating the lodges closer to residential properties nearby. Whilst the location in landscape terms is another matter, it is considered that there are good reasons for compatibility for separating the new lodge buildings a little further away from all the existing buildings. Firstly it is considered that the location of the lodges would be better located so as to be somewhat further away from the residential property to the west (Broadview Cottage) for amenity reasons. Also, in terms of the amenity for those in the holiday accommodation, it is preferable to have a degree of separation from the café/farm shop (if approved) and the agricultural buildings. 8.5 It is clear that sustainable rural tourism is supported generally in both national guidance and also in the Defra Circular “English National Parks and the Broads – UK Government Vision Circular 2010 where it confirms: “The pursuit of sustainable tourism is therefore a critical objective for the Authorities as a key contributor to the local economy and as a prerequisite for the successful promotion of the wider
25 enjoyment of the parks without compromising their special qualities.” 8.6 The South Downs National Park Visitor Accommodation Review (December 2014) also confirms that there is a potential for visitor accommodation development across all parts of the Park with frequent shortages of all types of accommodation at weekends and during the week in the peak summer months. Clearly accommodation which is either serviced or has access on site to food, drink etc. is preferable in that it involves the local economy being supported, as opposed to visitors arriving at accommodation with produce that has been sourced outside the park. 8.7 Saved Policy C13 specifically states that permission for an enterprise which forms part of a farm diversification scheme will be permitted subject to then criteria referenced above. It is therefore also important to consider whether this is a farm diversification proposal. The explanatory text is helpful in confirming the following: “The object of diversification is to allow the primary agricultural unit to be retained whilst being supplemented by another form of income.” “The District Council considers that all proposals for diversification should be looked at on a comprehensive basis and that assets of farms are not stripped on a piecemeal basis, without regard to the needs and the viability of the holding.” “Development proposals will usually need to be accompanied by an explanation of the implications for the farm unit, including a supporting statement showing the relationship between the proposed diversification and the current and future maintenance of the remainder of the land on the holding.” 8.8 The applicant has provided some information during the process of the application to explain the nature of the current agricultural activity which takes place on the land. Essentially the applicant owns the land and rents the land to a tenant farmer on an annual basis who grazes sheep on the land. The income in relation to agriculture is solely from the rent that the tenant farmer pays and a similar grant by the government. It is clear purely on the basis of the limited income derived from agriculture that this does not allow the applicant to manage the maintenance of the estate (There is no detail as to whether the applicant receives any income from businesses unrelated to the farm). It is clear therefore that there is an agricultural enterprise which is undertaken on the land. Since taking ownership of the site Mr Cullen has made changes and improvements to the site by way of improving the grass quality with the laying of new topsoil, improving underused and poor quality areas so they can be grazed, improvement to watercourses, the erection of new fencing around the farm, clearance of dilapidated barns and repair of those remaining and also some woodland management. In addition, during the lambing season Mr Cullen has taken an active involvement in assisting the tenant farmer with a variety of jobs in connection with the tenant’s enterprise (although there is no financially binding agreement between the applicant and the tenant farmer in relation to this assistance). 8.9 The difficulty with the scheme according with the adopted policies is that there appears to be no clear strategy as to the relationship between the proposals as submitted and the current and future maintenance of the remainder of the land on the holding. This is arguably difficult given that the tenancy arrangement appears to be solely on an annual basis and this would make it somewhat problematical for the applicant to produce a meaningful and tangible whole farm plan which enables a programme to secure the ongoing enterprise and the management of the land. 8.10 Policy CP6 of the Core Strategy (2014) allows for farm diversification schemes and enterprises that help maintain the viability of farm businesses engaged in sustainable land management, including tourism facilities, visitor attractions and visitor accommodation. 8.11 This policy re-enforces the need for such schemes to be able to show that the result will be that the development assists in maintaining the current enterprise and sustainable land management. As outlined above, it is considered that this, on balance, has not been demonstrated and the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy in this respect. 8.12 Farm Shop: The proposal is, in much the same way predicated on a justification due to agricultural diversification. The current information ultimately leads to a conclusion that it
26 has not been demonstrated that the proposal accords with the saved policies contained within the Local Plan Second Review or the Policies within the Joint Core Strategy. Impact on the landscape character of the area/Design of Buildings. 8.13 Lodges: A number of matters require close consideration in landscape terms as far as the proposals for the lodges and shepherd huts are considered. The lodges would be located at the bottom of the site in the valley in close alignment with the tree lined boundary with the industrial estate. In the main part the lodges would be seen against backdrop of the tree line and their impact would be softened in this respect with only the northernmost lodge not having the backdrop of trees and it is arguable that this building would relate visually more to the group of agricultural buildings (and potentially the café/farm shop if this were to be approved) to the north east. Notwithstanding the concerns of the Landscape Officer in relation to the location of the lodges, on balance it is considered that the lodges would be acceptably located as to not have an adverse impact on the surrounding landscape. 8.14 The design of the lodges is considered to be simple and uniform and would relate more closely to the agricultural buildings and the proposed café farm shop. Whilst it is arguable that a variety of cabin designs could have been introduced to provide more interest, the low key design is considered a more appropriate design response in this rural location. 8.15 The location for the shepherd huts in the southern corner of the site, with the backdrop of boundary trees and existing trees located close to this area is considered to be acceptable and would sit comfortably alongside the lodge buildings in this valley location. Whilst concerns are raised about the lack of information about the design or style of these huts it is considered that this could be adequately dealt with by way of condition. 8.16 Concerns have been raised about the lack of pedestrian paths or vehicular drop-off points to the lodges. The absence of such paths has been specifically planned to prevent a more urbanised and formalised layout that would detract from the rural landscaped character of the area. 8.17 Parking: The matter of parking provision is considered elsewhere in the report and there is obviously some inter-related issues as far as this is concerned with the concurrent application. The introduction of a significant parking area within the site without the benefit of farm buildings or sensitive landscape screening could have significant adverse impact on the surrounding area. The introduction of the farm shop building (if approved) would go some way to addressing this issue and that impact would be significantly reduced from views from the footpath to the south west. In the event that the concurrent application for the café/farm shop were refused, the car park would be clearly visible in the landscape and a sensitive landscaping scheme would be required to provide a screen from the parking area and thus prevent views of what would be an urban and uncharacteristic element within this rural agricultural location. The land drops from north east to south west between the agricultural buildings and the Industrial Estate, which means that the impact of the main car park area would be limited in views from Blacknest Road. 8.18 The recent submission of amended plans in order to provide an acceptable amount of parking for the proposed schemes has resulted in the introduction of a disconnected small parking area to the south east of the lake and access in the corner of the site adjacent to the Industrial Estate. 8.19 This parking area would not relate the main group of agricultural buildings and would be in a higher location within the site where it would be visible from Blacknest Road and certainly from the new proposed access. Whilst it would be seen against the back drop of the Industrial Estate, the application site provides a very clear break from the more urban character of the industrial estate to the predominant rural landscape character of the surrounding area. Notwithstanding that the applicant could introduce an element of landscaping to somewhat screen the parking area, this in itself would appear somewhat conspicuous and more formal in this rural landscape. The applicant has continued to seek a solution to this issue and has recently suggested a larger parking area closer to the barns with the relocation of the Café Farm shop further to the south west. Officers have declined to consider such amendments at this stage, given that this could potentially result in a 27 greater impact on the landscape. 8.20 Café/Farm Shop: The proposed café/farm shop building would be located within a group of other existing agricultural buildings and would relate closely to this group. It is not considered, in isolation, that this building would have an unacceptable impact on the landscape character of the area. In addition, it is considered that the main parking area would be acceptable in landscaping terms, given its location around a group of agricultural buildings which would screen the parking area effectively. In addition the land drops from north east to south west, which means that the parking area would not be so easily visible from Blacknest Road (as mentioned above). 8.21 The proposed building would be of an agricultural character and has been designed to sit comfortably alongside the existing agricultural buildings on the site. This is considered to be an acceptable design approach in this rural location. 8.22 Unfortunately the introduction of the additional parking area is considered unacceptable for the reasons set out in Paragraph 8.16 above. Impact of the proposals on Highways 8.23 The proposals have been subject to much scrutiny by the Highways Authority given the potential for an increase in vehicular activity. 8.24 The Highways Authority have revisited the site and carried out a thorough review of the proposed access to the site and have confirmed that the proposed access is acceptable and meets the requirements in terms of necessary visibility splays. 8.25 In addition, the amount of parking provided by the applicant across both schemes is considered to be acceptable to the Highways Authority, subject to conditions (although the acceptability or otherwise in landscape terms is obviously outside the remit of the Highways Authority) 8.26 The Highways Authority also consider that the scheme for the lodges would require a financial contribution of £18,879 towards highway works in the vicinity (The Implementation of the Blacknest and Bentley Corridor Traffic Management Strategy). The applicant has confirmed that they are willing to enter into such an agreement should members be minded to approve. In the absence of such an agreement having been secured as of yet, the application is recommended for refusal in this respect. Impact of the proposals on the ecology within the site. 8.27 The applicant has submitted an ecological appraisal as part of the application which has been subject to scrutiny by the County Ecologist. 8.28 Concerns were originally raised in relation to the loss of hedgerow in order to provide the new access to the site and how this might affect dormice that may or not be present. However after further consideration and in light of the most recent ecological reports, given the limited section of hedgerow being removed for access, without the need for additional visibility splay removal, the Ecologist took the view that the risk was very low indeed. The hedgerow is, according to the latest ecological report, structurally unsuitable and is severed by gaps in various locations. On balance the Ecologist considers that the likelihood is extremely low and that, given the fragmented and well-managed nature of the existing habitat, there is insufficient justification to request a full Phase 2 dormouse survey. Impact on flood risk 8.29 Lodges: The applicant has submitted amended Flood Risk Assessments throughout the progress of the application. The most recently submitted FRA was considered to be acceptable by the Environment Agency and it is not therefore considered that a refusal could be sustained in relation to flood risk. Impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties and uses. 8.30 The nearest residential property (Broadview Cottage) is located to the north of the existing group of farm buildings and to the south west of the applicants dwelling, Broadview Farm. The dwelling is relatively close to the farm buildings and inevitably there might be some
28 impact on the current amenity enjoyed by the residents of this property. However this also needs to be considered in the light of the potential agricultural activity that could or has taken place over the years and whether the proposed schemes would result in such activity or noise which would be so great as to have an unacceptable impact on this property. It is considered that the farm building would effectively screen the parking area and main activities in relation to the shop as to prevent a significant impact on this property. Likewise, it is considered that the lodges would be sufficiently set away as to not to have a significant impact on this property. 8.31 A group of residential properties lie on the opposite side of the road to Broad View Farm. Whilst the proposals would result in an increase in vehicular activity into the application site, it is not considered that this would be to such an extent that this would impact on the amenity currently enjoyed by these properties. It is considered that the use for a café/farm shop and lodges would be set sufficiently away from these properties as to not have an impact in relation to noise. 8.32 Concern has been raised that the proposed introduction of tourist accommodation would be incompatible with the existing industrial estate to the south east of the site. The nature of some uses within the industrial estate would invariably result in some noise, which some have argued would not be a suitable location for visitor accommodation. Whilst there may be occasions when visitors would experience some noise from the adjoining estate, it is not considered that this would be so unacceptable as to refuse on this basis. The majority of the industrial use is limited to normal working hours and one would expect the users of the accommodation to expect relative tranquillity outside of these times. On this basis it is considered that the tourist accommodation could co-exist comfortably alongside the adjoining industrial estate.
9. Conclusion 9.1 It is acknowledged that there is a very clear need for holiday accommodation within the National Park as evidenced by the findings of the South Downs National Park Visitor Accommodation Review. The opportunity for provision of such accommodation is given within the Policies within the Joint Core Strategy, the Saved Policies of the East Hampshire District Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. However this need (and the general support for farm shops) is predicated on being as a form of agricultural diversification. Whilst there is clearly an element of agricultural activity being carried out on the farm, the proposals do not provide enough confidence as to how the scheme can help secure and maintain the viability of the agricultural enterprise on the land and also the future maintenance and management of the holding. On balance, it has not been demonstrated in the absence of a whole farm plan and the means of securing the ongoing viability and maintenance/management of the land, that the proposals can be considered as part of a farm diversification scheme and therefore fail to comply with the Policies within either the Core Strategy or the Saved Policies of the East Hampshire District Local Plan. 9.2 The proposals would not conserve or enhance the landscape of the National Park by virtue of the introduction of a parking area unrelated and disconnected from the main parking area which would result in an alien and urban feature in a rural location, contrary to the purposes of the park and established policies. In the absence of an approval for the farm shop, the proposed main car park would also have an unacceptable impact on the rural landscape character of the area. 9.3 In the absence of a financial contribution towards highway improvements in the locality the proposed lodges would be contrary to Policies within the East Hampshire District Local Plan Joint Core Strategy 2014. 9.4 For these reasons the applications are recommended for refusal.
10. Reason for Recommendation 10.1 Application SDNP/14/02026/FUL is recommended for refusal for the following reasons:
29 1. It has not been demonstrated that the proposal, on the basis of the submitted information, would help maintain the viability of a farm business engaged in sustainable land management. The proposal could not be considered as a form of agricultural diversification, in the absence of a whole farm plan clearly setting out the relationship between the existing enterprise and the proposals and how the current and future maintenance of the land could be secured. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary therefore to Saved Policy C13 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan Second Review (2006) and Policies CP6, CP9 and CP19 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. The proposal by virtue of the required parking provision would introduce a significant parking area resulting in a more formal and urban character in this sensitive rural location at odds with the existing rural landscape character of the site and surrounding area. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to Saved Policies C13, TM1, TM3 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan Second Review (2006) and Policies CP6, CP9 and CP19 and CP20 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework. 3. No provision has been made to secure financial contributions towards Transport infrastructure within the locality. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policy CP31 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy 2014, EHDC Guide to developers' contributions and other planning requirements 2011, HCC Transport contributions policy 2007 and the NPPF. 10.2 Application SDNP/14/05926/FUL is recommended for refusal for the following reasons: 1. It has not been demonstrated that the proposal, on the basis of the submitted information, would help maintain the viability of a farm business engaged in sustainable land management. The proposal could not be considered as a form of agricultural diversification, in the absence of a whole farm plan clearly setting out the relationship between the existing enterprise and the proposals and how the current and future maintenance of the land could be secured. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary therefore to Saved Policy C13 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan Second Review (2006) and Policies CP6, CP9 and CP19 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. The proposal by virtue of the required parking provision would introduce a significant parking area resulting in a more formal and urban character in this sensitive rural location at odds with the existing rural landscape character of the site and surrounding area. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to Saved Policy C13 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan Second Review (2006) and Policies CP6, CP9 and CP19 and CP20 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework. 11. Crime and Disorder Implications 11.1 It is considered that the proposal does not raise any crime and disorder issues or implications. 12. Human Rights Implications 12.1 This planning application has been considered in light of statute and case law and any interference with an individual’s human rights is considered to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised. 13. Equality Act 2010 13.1 Due regard has been taken of the South Downs National Park Authority’s equality duty as contained within the Equality Act 2010. 14. Proactive Working 14.1 In reaching this decision the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a 30 positive and proactive way, in line with the NPPF. This has included the provision of pre- application advice, numerous on site meetings, the opportunity to provide additional information to ensure the best chance of success despite concerns consistently expressed by SDNPA Officers and some consultees.
Tim Slaney Director of Planning South Downs National Park Authority
Contact Officer: Rob Ainslie Tel: 01730 819 273 email: [email protected] Appendices: 1. Site Location Map SDNPA Consultees: Director of Planning & Legal Services.
Background Documents: http://planningpublicaccess.southdowns.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=N46Q1GTUG1900 http://planningpublicaccess.southdowns.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NF84JYTUKPP00 National Planning Policy Framework https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2 National Planning Practise Guidance http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/ Defra: English National Parks and the Broads – UK Government Vision and Circular 2010. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-national-parks-and-the-broads-uk-government- vision-and-circular-2010 SDNP Partnership Management Plan http://www.southdowns.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/SDNP-Partnership-Management-Plan- 2014-19.pdf East Hampshire District Local Plan (Second Review) (2006) http://localplan.easthants.gov.uk/contents_written.htm East Hampshire District Local Plan Joint Core Strategy (2014) http://www.easthants.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/DP01EastHampshireDistrictLocalPlanJoint CoreStrategy.pdf Guide to Developers Contributions – East Hampshire District Council – May 2014 (Amended September 2014) http://www.easthants.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/GuideDevelopersContributions.pdf Hampshire County Council: Transport Contributions Policy (2007) http://www3.hants.gov.uk/transport_contributions_policy.pdf Visitor Accommodation Review – South Downs National Park 2015 https://www.southdowns.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Visitor-Accommodation-Review- Report.pdf Visitor Accommodation Review – Technical Appendices http://www.southdowns.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Visitor-Accommodation-Review- Technical-Appendices.pdf
31
Agenda Item 7 Report PC1/16 Appendix 1 Site Location Map
This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Downs National Park Authority, Licence No. 100050083 (2012) (Not to scale). 32