PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

1 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held on 28 November 2013 in the Council Chamber, Penns Place, Petersfield, GU31 4EX.

Present:

Councillor A Glass (Chairman)

Councillors D Ashcroft, R Ayer, P Burridge, C Graham*, M Harvey, T Muldoon, D Newberry, S Schillemore**, and A Williams.

*Minute 105 to 113(v) and Minute 114 on. ** Minute 105 to 113(iii) only.

105 Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor N Drew.

106 Confirmation of Minutes

The minutes of the last meeting held on 31 October 2013 were confirmed as a correct record and signed.

107 Chairman’s Announcements

The Chairman announced:

(i) The location of the fire exits and requested that everyone evacuated by one of the fire exits and assembled in the car park, where a roll call would be taken;

(ii) To ensure all members of the public could hear the proceedings of the meeting, a portable loop system was available;

(iii) Asked that all present switched off their mobile phones to prevent interference with the microphones; and

(iv) Asked that those making representations used the microphone when speaking.

108 Declarations of Interest

There were no declarations of interest.

109 Acceptance of Supplementary Matters

Councillors noted the supplementary papers which included information received since the agenda had been published. These were reported verbally at the meeting and are attached as Annex A to these minutes.

110 Future Items

The Committee did not agree to any site visits.

2 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

111 Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended) – Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 – Development Applications

Report of the Service Manager Planning Development, PS.415/2013 was considered and it was RESOLVED that:

Application No., Site and Description: Resolution:

54599/001/FUL Refused for the reasons set out in Appendix B. Bramshott Place Phase 4 Site, King Georges Drive, Liphook

40 COTTAGES, 64 BEDROOMED CARE HOME WITH ASSOCIATED BIN STORES, CAR PARKING, GARAGES, GROUND MODELLING, LANDSCAPING AND ACCESS. EXTENSION TO EXISTING CLUB HOUSE

54599/FUL Refused for the reasons set out in Appendix B. Bramshott Place Phase 4 Site, King Georges Drive, Liphook

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTE (AS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 16/10/2013)

20209/007/OUT Outline permission subject to proviso and conditions as set out in Appendix Ropley Lime Quarry, Soames Lane, A. Ropley, Alresford, SO24 0ER

OUTLINE - SIX DWELLINGS WITH GARAGES/OFFICES. REINSTATEMENT OF EXISTING QUARRY LANDSCAPING AND RECONTOURING OF SITE (AS AMENDED BY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 07/08/2013)

25030/003 /OUT Permission subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A. Land south of, Headley Fields, Headley, Bordon

OUTLINE - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR SEVEN

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

DWELLINGS, OF WHICH 2 WOULD BE AFFORDABLE, WITH ACCESS VIA HEADLEY FIELDS

54778/002/FUL Permission subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A. 35 The Spinney, Horndean, Waterlooville, PO8 9PN

ATTACHED DWELLING

21987/003/HSE Refused for the reasons set out in Appendix B. 42a Drift Road, Clanfield, Waterlooville, PO8 0NH

FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION TO REAR, CONVERSION OF INTERNAL GARAGE TO HABITABLE ACCOMMODATION, WITH BAY WINDOW AND REPLACE FLAT ROOF AND EXISTING FRONT DORMER WITH PITCHED ROOF (AS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 15/11/2013 AND 27/11/2013)

SDNP/13/04428/HOUS Permission subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A. 11A Ramsdean Road, Stroud, GU32 3PJ.

SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO REAR

112 PART 1 – East Hampshire District Council – Applications and related planning matters to be determined or considered by the Council as the local planning authority.

113 SECTION 1 – APPLICATIONS REPORTED IN DETAIL

(i) 54599/001– Bramshott Place Phase 4 Site, King Georges Drive, Liphook – 40 cottages, 64 bedroomed care home with associated bin stores, car parking, garages, ground modelling, landscaping and access. Extension to existing club house.

Julia Mansi, Planning Development Manager, introduced the report and displayed an aerial photograph of the site, along with site plans of the existing and proposed development. In addition, photographs of and from within the site were shown and the three elements of the proposal were outlined. The first element would comprise of a nursing home, 40 cottages would make up the second element, with a single storey extension to the existing clubhouse being the third element. She referred the committee to the amended recommendation and additional conditions included within the supplementary matters.

4 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

The determining issues for consideration were:

• Principle of the development and need; • Location of development; • Layout and form of development; • Access and transport; • Impact on existing development; • Impact on surrounding area; • Ecology and trees; • Drainage; • Energy conservation; and • Affordable housing and Developer Contributions.

The officer’s recommendation was for permission.

Mr Ian Ellis spoke on behalf of objectors to the application

He represented and spoke on behalf of the residents of over 60 properties of Bramshott Place, who objected very strongly to the application.

He had ten key points of objection.

This was a countryside site well away from the Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) for Liphook. The report was utterly wrong when it said the proposal accorded with the Interim Housing Policy Statement. This site was not immediately adjacent or contiguous with an existing SPB; it thus conflicted with the essential pre-requisite of the interim policy.

The site had never been part of the former hospital site, it was no more than an opportunist proposal praying in aid of the Bramshott Place development. The photographs displayed showed that development had no physical or visual affinity with its surroundings and would represent a major incursion of development very significantly and adversely affecting the rural setting of Liphook.

The development would add 50% more built form in open countryside standing outside the existing retirement village. It would break out of that development’s landscaped surrounds. It was the complete anathema to what the Local Plan Inspector felt should be a compact form of development of previously developed land.

This was not development that accorded with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) or Local Plan. The five year land housing supply deficit wasn’t a magic wand to wave away sound planning and environmental considerations. There were other potential Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) sites at Liphook that would accord with local policies without causing substantial harm.

Boosting the supply of housing land should only apply to the right site in the right location where development was consistent with the NPPF as a whole. This was not such a site or development.

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

The development, like the original village, would fail to deliver what it promised. The promise being to make an immediate and important contribution to alleviating an acute need within the district. The proposal did not address the existing need of the area (NPPF para 15) as the take up of accommodation at the existing village showed that some 90% of the units were occupied by residents from outside of the district.

It would represent a harsh and urban form with a large overbearing care home that would utterly conflict with Policy H13 in terms of its scale and adverse effect on the character of the surrounding area.

There was grave doubt about the traffic and transport assessment of the proposal. Comparison with Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS) data for other care homes had been rudimentary and flawed as they were not comparable with a rural location.

Reliance on a Travel Plan for the existing village was unsound, as it had not been actively promoted and residents were unaware of it.

Existing residents were concerned that the lifestyle and community they had bought into will be ruined by the activity associated with the care home and their standard of amenity and enjoyment of Bramshott Place Village will be detrimentally affected.

Cllr Trevor Maroney spoke on behalf of Bramshott and Liphook Parish Council.

He reminded the committee that the existing development had been built on employment land, the former King George V Hospital site. The adjacent land forming this application would be ideal for future employment and not add additional Heavy Goods Vehicle Traffic through the village. The Bramshott and Liphook Parish Council Planning Committee had strongly objected to this application. The site was agricultural farmland and had not been earmarked for future development. The Parish Council had been astonished that the land had been reclassified as a SHLAA site, as those working on the Neighbourhood Plan had wanted the land to be allocated for employment. The approval of this application would make the Bramshott Place Village bigger than some hamlets.

Flooding was a major concern and the limited facilities on the site meant that residents were reliant on their cars. The proposed expansion of this development would increase traffic further in this rural area.

The proposal would not meet local housing needs, as it would not provide any affordable housing. If approved, it would be a dominant feature on the landscape and set a precedent for the remainder of the land at Penally Farm.

Ms Kim Morris, the agent, spoke on behalf of the applicant.

She explained that the existing development had been very successful and was of the highest standard. In 2012 Bramshott Place Village had won the Best Retirement Scheme category at the Housebuilder of the Year Awards and a silver award in the Best Retirement Development category at the prestigious

6 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

What House Awards. These were national awards, which reflected the high quality of the scheme. Contrary to what some had claimed, not many units remained available.

The application sought 40 more similar cottages, along with a care home. These too would be of the highest quality and would meet the substantial identified need locally and nationally for housing for the over 55’s. Another benefit of such a scheme was that it would allow older people to downsize, thereby freeing up larger homes for families. The care home would provide nursing care and potentially relieve some pressure on the stretched local healthcare provision. Thirty jobs would be created in perpetuity and a number of jobs would be created during the construction of the development.

The proposal had been sensitively designed and she asked the committee to approve the application.

Cllr Bill Mouland spoke as one of the local councillors.

During the early stages of the proposal, he explained that half of the battle had been getting local support. A secret ballot had been conducted, which had resulted in only 8 people being in favour. Bramshott and Liphook Parish Council had objected and 99 letters of objection had been received. These had not been of the ‘round robin’ variety. They had been individual letters, well thought out, and raising numerous issues.

Many of the residents of the existing Bramshott Place Village had bought their properties in the belief that there would be no further development. It had originally been envisaged that this would be the case and that the village would be small, comprising of some 50 units. For some residents, living there had become a nightmare, with most of the social activities being focussed on objecting to this planning application.

He was surprised that Dormice had not been raised as an issue, because an application by Liphook United, which was the other side of the A3 to the Special Protection Area (SPA) had been refused because of the potential effect on Dormice. This application was closer to the SPA and on the same side of the A3, yet Dormice had not been considered an issue.

Whilst this application would provide a contribution for affordable housing, developments in Liphook had already generated a substantial amount of money for affordable housing, not a penny of which had been spent in the village. Liphook needed starter and affordable homes.

The site was outside of the SPB, therefore it could be argued that it was unacceptable development and the proposed care home was not needed, as numerous care homes already existed on the B2070. He thought that people in care homes would usually want to be near to their families, however many in the existing development had moved there from outside of the district. This was at odds with Bramshott Place Village’s vision that existing residents would move out of their cottages and into the care home.

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

If approved, he thought that this application would open the floodgates to further development at Penally Farm.

The committee debated the application.

The terminology used of ‘phase 4’ was questioned because when the application for the existing development had been approved, it was not recalled that there were any plans to add further ‘phases’ to the site. The basis for the recommendation to approve this application was the lack of a five year housing land supply. Approving this application would not have previously been entertained, as the site was outside of the SPB. It did however run parallel to the existing development. Officers were asked to justify the recommendation for permission.

In reply, Mrs Mansi, Planning Development Manager, reminded the committee that the NPPF was now the ‘guiding light’ for determining planning applications. She explained that a number of the council’s local plan policies were out of date and the Joint Core Strategy was not yet in place. The Planning Inspector had said that the council did not have a five year land supply and that the council had to deliver sites to meet this need. This need stood at 1,000 and a further 500 would be added to this figure in April 2014. The council had adopted an Interim Planning Policy Statement, which was currently out for public consultation.

The committee was correct that the proposal did not adjoin the SPB, but it would have strong management and physical links to the existing Bramshott Place Village development. In her opinion it was clearly an extension of the existing development and therefore acceptable. Some concern had been raised regarding need and she confirmed that there was a need for such developments in the district.

Members of the committee criticised the design and bulk of the proposed care home, feeling that it’s quality of design would not match that of the other elements of the proposed and existing development and result in it looking alien in its surroundings.

The committee appreciated that there was a need to fulfil the five year land supply, however development needed to be in the right location. If not, then the loss of this green field site would be regretted. Concern was also raised about how many more phases of development there would be at Penally Farm.

The issue of the provision for off-site affordable housing was raised, as people were desperate for affordable housing. Why should this development be restricted to over 55’s? Whilst the site was probably a reasonable place to build, it shouldn’t be subject to such restrictions. It was felt that there would be a good case for providing affordable housing on site, as there was often a requirement for carers and cleaners in age-restricted developments. Providing on-site affordable housing suitable for these workers would not only be convenient, it had the potential to reduce traffic movements.

The Chairman invited Cllr Mouland, a local councillor, to sum up for a further minute. Cllr Mouland felt that the reference made to the NPPF was a ‘red

8 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013 herring’ and urged the committee not to be afraid of what might happen at appeal and vote for what it thought was right.

On behalf of objectors, Mr Ian Ellis explained that the SPB was at least 500m away from this site. He thought that a precedent would be set for similar parcels of land if this application was approved.

Ms Morris, the agent, confirmed that there was a critical need for such developments. This proposal would meet a demand by providing a care home and age-restricted properties adjacent to an existing retirement facility.

Mr Murray, Service Manager Planning Development, referred to page 24 of the agenda, which highlighted what the Interim Housing Policy Statement aimed to achieve. He advised the committee that it needed to have regard to the NPPF, which stated that the planning system had an economic, social and environmental role. The ecologist had not raised any issues and officers were satisfied that the economic and social aspects would be met.

Whilst the proposal wasn’t a perfect fit for the Interim Housing Policy, there was no doubt that it would be adjacent to an existing sustainable development and officers’ felt that it was largely in the spirit of the NPPF and Policy H13.

He advised the committee that if it was minded to refuse the application, it needed to be sure that the elements which did not meet the NPPF, Policy H13 and the Interim Housing Policy Statement were so significant that refusal was justified.

He agreed with the committee that the recommendation was finely balanced, but in his opinion it was balanced in favour of permission.

The committee voted on the officer’s recommendation for permission, as amended by the supplementary matters sheet.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared LOST , No Councillors voting FOR permission, 6 Councillors voting AGAINST permission and 4 Councillors ABSTAINING from voting.

The committee adjourned at 7.50pm

The committee reconvened at 8.03pm

Cllr Williams proposed the following reason for refusal:

“The proposed development lies in countryside, which is outside of and is physically and visually divorced from any Settlement Policy Boundary. The proposal, by reason of its position and relationship to the settlement would not harmonise with the pattern and character of the settlement and would not be a sustainable extension to the settlement of Liphook. As such, the proposal fails to meet the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the criteria set out in the Interim Housing Policy Statement and policies H13, GS1 and GS3 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.”

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

Cllr Burridge proposed the following additional reason for refusal:

“The care home, by reason of its mass, scale and appearance and its location on the edge of the development would be detrimental to the character and appearance of this countryside location, contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF and policy HE1 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.”

Mr Murray advised that technical reasons for refusal, such as developer contributions, would also need to be added and asked that delegated authority be given to officers to amend the reason for refusal accordingly, in consultation with the Chairman.

Cllr Williams’ proposal for refusal, as amended by Cllr Burridge and the Service Manager Planning Development was seconded by Cllr Schillemore.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED , 7 Councillors voting FOR refusal, 1 Councillor voting AGAINST refusal and 2 Councillors ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED as set out in Part 1, Appendix B of these minutes.

(ii) 54599 – Bramshott Place Phase 4 Site, King Georges Drive, Liphook – Temporary construction access route (as additional information received 16/10/2013)

Julia Mansi, Planning Development Manager, introduced the report. She advised the committee that as the previous application had been refused, this application should also be refused, as the temporary construction access would not be needed.

The officer’s recommendation was for refusal because the application constituted unwanted development that would have an adverse impact on the countryside.

Cllr Burridge proposed that the committee vote on the reason for refusal, as recommended by Mrs Mansi.

This was seconded by Cllr Williams.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED , 10 Councillors voting FOR refusal, no Councillors voting AGAINST refusal and no Councillors ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED, as set out in Part 1, Appendix B of these minutes.

The committee adjourned at 8.11pm

The committee reconvened at 8.14pm

10 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

(iii) 20209/007 – Ropley Lime Quarry, Soames Lane, Ropley, Alresford, SO24 0ER – OUTLINE – Six dwellings with garages/offices. Reinstatement of existing quarry landscaping and recontouring of site (as amended by additional information received 07/08/2013)

Julia Mansi, Planning Development Manager, introduced the report and displayed an aerial photograph of the site and proposed site plans, along with photographs of and from within the site and the proposed access.

She explained that the quarry had an Interim Development Order granted in 1994 which allowed an annual tonnage of up to 16k tonnes to be removed from the site, up to a total of 670k tonnes until 31 March 2042. This was an outline application, with the only detailed matter being the appearance of the proposed dwellings.

Concerns had been raised by Ropley Parish Council regarding the trees subject to a TPO at the site entrance. She thought that adequate sight lines would be able to be provided without these trees being damaged. She referred the committee to the supplementary matters sheet which contained an amended recommendation and additional conditions.

The determining issues for consideration were:

• Principle of the development; • Restoration of the quarry; • Visual appearance; • Proposed layout; • Visual impact; • Impact on neighbouring properties; • Highways and lorry movements; • Ecology; • South Downs National Park; • Drainage; and • Developer Contributions.

The officer’s recommendation was for outline permission.

Mr Keith Charman spoke on behalf of objectors to the application.

Objectors felt that residential development on this site would be contrary to policies in the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review, the Joint Core Strategy and to key guidelines in the Ropley Village Design Statement. The proposal was for an estate style development, which would be at odds with the existing linear development along Soames Lane and at almost three times the density of the neighbouring housing. In tandem with the recently approved affordable housing just to the south of the quarry site, this proposal would mean a 30% increase in the number of homes in the lane, all of them well outside the Village’s Settlement Policy Boundary.

Contrary to statements in the report, this was not a brown field site, as the 1994 planning permission for mineral extraction included provision for site restoration

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

and the Government was clear that such land did not constitute previously developed land. If housing development was proposed on the adjoining green field site, it would be refused. The committee should therefore do the same for this site.

The report suggested that this development should be approved as an exception to policies on the grounds that otherwise quarrying would resume. This was a false alternative. The site had lain dormant for over 17 years and it was highly unlikely that quarrying would resume now or in the future. This view was confirmed by the County Minerals Planning Authority which had stated that Ropley Quarry was one of the many dormant chalk extraction sites unsuitable for modern quarrying methods.

Neither was housing development necessary in order to restore the site. Nature had partially reclaimed much of the Ropley Quarry over the past 17 years and she should be left to complete the job.

Access to the site would be from Soames Lane, which was single track for its entire length with very few passing places. The restoration and development would result in a substantial increase in vehicle movements on this narrow rural lane, which had been identified as requiring particular protection in the Ropley Village Design Statement. This would have a detrimental impact on road safety in the lane, which was regularly used by horse riders, cyclists and pedestrians.

The magnificent Beech trees adjacent to the proposed new entrance were subject to a TPO and from his measurements, visibility splays could not be achieved without the removal of these trees.

Finally, County Cllr Mark Kemp-Gee had brought it to his attention that, during the previous 48 hours, correspondence between the County Council Minerals and Waste and Highways Authority had highlighted the following critical issues which should be brought to the attention of the committee:

1. The estimate of imported soil was unsafe and needed more professional evidence; 2. The estimate of lorry movements was therefore unsafe; 3. County Highways Officers had insisted that, before any development began, a detailed traffic plan be submitted. This would look at the number, type of HGV, hours and HGV restrictions as considered necessary and appropriate where these issues related to highway safety; and 4. The applicant should be advised to seek legal advice as to whether he should need to agree revocation of the mineral IDO permission through completion of a Section 106 agreement.

These matters formed part of the planning decision but the flaw in calculating the amount of imported topsoil was a serious one. Hampshire County Council did not think that it could be relied upon at this stage as only rough workings had been used for corroborative purposes and could not be relied upon and it would be advisable, therefore, to defer the application, until a proper and professional corroborative exercise is completed in this regard.

12 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

He therefore urged that the application be refused.

Cllr Jenny Nops spoke on behalf of Ropley Parish Council.

She highlighted the rural location of the quarry and raised concerns on the amenity of the area if quarrying were to recommence. Ropley Parish Council had no objection to the proposed change of use of the site to residential, subject to adequate sight lines being achieved without removing the trees subject to a TPO. Ropley Parish Council had concerns regarding damage and disturbance to the local area during construction and asked that the relevant authorities did all that they could to prevent this.

Mr Andrew Aldridge, the agent, spoke on behalf of the applicant.

He stated that this proposal was not opportunist development, the applicant had originally acquired the site as a land bank for cement production. He appreciated the concerns raised regarding vehicle movements, but explained that this would only be during the construction phase. He felt that this revised proposal was better than the application granted in 1994 from an ecological and sustainability point of view. It would make the quarry more in-keeping with the surrounding area, thereby lessening its visual impact and provide a secure and sustainable future for the site.

The committee debated the application.

Cllr Graham gave some history of the site and explained that Hampshire County Council had assessed the quarry and were happy for it to close. His main concern was the traffic and disruption that would be caused during the reconstruction of the site

He requested that Condition 17 be amended to include consultation with the local District Councillor. He was concerned that Condition 20 did not stipulate an upper limit on the total amount of sub or top soil that could be brought into the site and due to the site’s sensitive nature, he did not think that Condition 22 should allow any restoration works to take place on a Saturday.

Mrs Mansi confirmed that the total amount of soil that could be brought onto the site was restricted by the second of the additional conditions included in the supplementary matter sheet, which stipulated that “Materials imported to the site shall only be sub or top soil for restoration purposes”. She did however agree to strengthen Condition 20 to make this clear and that the final wording of this condition be done in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee and the local District Councillor.

A further concern was raised with Condition 22, which would allow lorries to access and egress the site during the restoration of the site between 07:00 and 18:00. Given the rural nature of Soames Lane and the dark evenings during Winter, it was felt that these hours should be reduced to 08:00 to 17:00.

Mrs Mansi explained that the timings included in Condition 22 were the same as the timings included in the current permission for quarrying on the site. Chris Murray, Service Manager Planning Development, added that reasonable

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

restrictions could be imposed, but reducing the hours per day could lead to the restoration works and any associated disturbance being extended over a longer time period.

Cllr Graham proposed that the wording of Condition 22 be amended as follows:

“No lorries shall access or egress the site or restoration works shall take place other than between the hours of 08:00 and 17:00 Monday to Friday inclusive. No lorries shall access or egress the site or restoration works shall take place on Saturdays, Sundays, Bank Holidays or public holidays.”

This proposal was seconded by Cllr Muldoon.

The committee voted on the officer’s recommendation for outline permission, as amended by the supplementary matters sheet and incorporating the amended Condition 22 proposed by Cllr Graham.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED , 10 Councillors voting FOR permission, no Councillors voting AGAINST permission and no Councillors ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that outline permission be GRANTED, as set out in Part 1, Appendix A of these minutes.

Cllr Schillemore left the meeting.

(iv) 25030/003 – Land south of Headley Fields, Headley, Bordon – OUTLINE – Residential development for seven dwellings, of which 2 would be affordable with access via Headley Fields.

Nigel Jarvis, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report and displayed an aerial photograph of the site and proposed site plans, along with photographs of the site and the proposed access. He highlighted trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order and that the Settlement Policy for Boundary for Headley was adjacent to the north of the site.

The determining issues for consideration were:

• Principle of development; • Density and mix of housing; • Impact on the character of the area; • Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties; • Impact on highway safety; • Drainage and flood risk; • Impact on biodiversity; • Landscape and tree issues; and • Developer Contributions.

The officer’s recommendation was that outline permission be granted subject to conditions and planning obligation.

14 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

Mr Chris Embling spoke on behalf of objectors to the application.

Although they knew it was unlikely, the preference of local residents was for the site to remain as a field. The opinion of local residents was that the development was acceptable in principle, however they objected to the affordable element of the proposal, which they felt out of keeping for the area. They welcomed the nature reserve and had drafted a covenant for it with the agent.

Cllr Williams gave some history to the site, which had been proposed as a reserve site during the creation of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review, but refused by the Planning Inspector. The field had not been used for many years and had become overgrown prior to being cut recently. This was one of the two SHLAA sites in Headley and could accommodate up to 31 dwellings. After much public engagement this had reduced to an application for 7 dwellings and a separate application for a nature reserve. He hoped that the edges of the site would be maintained as wildlife corridors and it was hoped by residents and Headley Parish Council that the nature reserve would be maintained in perpetuity.

He supported the recommendation for outline permission.

The committee voted on the officer’s recommendation for outline permission.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED , 9 Councillors voting FOR permission, no Councillors voting AGAINST permission and no Councillors ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that outline permission be GRANTED, as set out in Part 1, Appendix A of these minutes.

(v) 54778/002 – 35 The Spinney, Horndean, Waterlooville, PO8 9PN – Attached Dwelling

Nigel Jarvis, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report and displayed an aerial photograph of the site and proposed site plans, along with photographs of the site and the proposed access. He explained that this was the same development as an earlier application that had been resolved by the committee in July 2013 to grant planning permission, subject to a planning obligation being entered into. However, it had been refused under delegated authority because the S.106 Developer Contributions had not been paid in the agreed timeframe. He confirmed that these contributions had now been paid.

The determining issues for consideration were:

• Principle of development; • Design and appearance; • Impact on amenities of neighbouring properties; • Access and parking; • Flood risk; • Energy conservation; and • Public open space, transport and environmental improvements.

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

The officer’s recommendation was for permission.

Mrs Pauline Mulcock spoke on behalf of objectors to the application.

She reminded the committee that the first planning application for number 35 The Spinney had been for an extension to an existing dwelling with no changes to parking requirements and this had been approved uncontested. The developer had then changed the plans for a separate dwelling with two additional parking places, both with access on to The Spinney as shown on the developer’s plan. This application had been contested by residents on the grounds of safety under Policy T9. The application was unfortunately approved and then rejected, as the developer defaulted on an agreed payment to the council. This duplicate application had not altered the concern of local residents, as cars exiting the proposed new property would have to cross a blind bend into the road. Hampshire County Highways had agreed to a change in the sight line requirements of the bend based on their estimated vehicle speed of cars going around the bend to be 10 to 12mph. This calculation was totally unrealistic and dangerously inaccurate.

The Spinney had a 30mph speed limit and cars rounded the bend at speeds nearer 20mph and often in excess of this. As residents had not seen any evidence of an accurate monitoring system, they had written to Mr Graham Oakley, the Hampshire County Highways representative, on 16 October to voice their concerns at the change in sight lines and their estimated traffic speed. Having received no response to either this letter or two subsequent emails, they telephoned Mr Oakley on 25 November. He had said that he had not had time to reply, which they felt was a very cavalier approach. He advised them that his estimate had been based on three site visits, one of which had been at 7pm, and that there had been sufficient on road parking around the bend to slow traffic down.

At the previous Planning Committee, the council submitted an aerial photograph which showed that there hadn’t been a parked car in the area. There was a public footpath directly opposite the site, which was used twice daily by children going to school and that in the Summer children played regularly, on the road in this area. The Parish Council did not support the findings of the Highway’s Officer, nor did local residents.

She reminded the committee of Policy T9 Section A of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review which stated that “planning permission for development requiring a new or improved access will be permitted provided that it would not cause danger or inconvenience on a public highway”. Residents were not contesting this application on the grounds of inconvenience, but on the grounds of safety.

As an elected body, unlike Hampshire County Highways, she appealed that the committee listen to the parish council and local residents and apply Policy T9 and refuse the application on the grounds of safety.

Cllr Robert Sowden spoke on behalf of Horndean Parish Council.

16 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

Horndean parish Council objected to this application as it considered it overdevelopment of the site. The parking for the site would exit onto a dangerous bend, where cars were usually parked, blocking one carriageway. This made it a blind bend and there had been several “near misses”. He agreed with objectors that the average speed of traffic around this bend was higher than 12mph.

Cllr David Evans spoke as one of the local councillors.

Cllr Evans felt that the issue of access safety was key and if Hampshire Highways had objected, then the application would have been refused. Hampshire Highways had instead decided that the fact that cars usually parked on the bend made it safer, as it forced traffic to go at 10mph. Cllr Evans disputed this, as traffic went around this bend faster than 10mph and the parking on the bend would prevent good rearward visibility out of the proposed parking spaces.

If permitted, he asked that a condition be added to request that the applicant provide evidence to prove that traffic travelled at 10mph around the bend. If it was proven that traffic travelled at speeds in excess of 15mph, then the application would be refused.

The committee debated the application.

The committee highlighted that it was only reconsidering the application because the applicant had failed to pay the S.106 Developer Contributions in time and that an employee of the council was a partner of the agent who had submitted the application. As such, it could not introduce new elements to an identical application to one that it had previously permitted.

Mr Jarvis confirmed that officers had spoken to Hampshire Highways very recently, who had not objected to the application, nor suggested a condition along the lines of that requested by Cllr Evans.

The committee voted on the officer’s recommendation for permission, as amended by the supplementary matters sheet.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED , 8 Councillors voting FOR permission, no Councillors voting AGAINST permission and 1 Councillor ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED, as set out in Part 1, Appendix A of these minutes.

Standing Order 35

During the consideration of the previous item, the Committee having sat continuously for three hours, agreed to an extension of time of no more than one hour.

Cllr Graham left the meeting.

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

(vi) 21987/003 – 42a Drift Road, Clanfield, Waterlooville, PO8 0NH – First floor extension to rear, conversion of internal garage to habitable accommodation, with bay window and replace flat roof and existing front dormer with pitched roof (as additional information received 15/11/2013)

Julia Mansi, Planning Development Manager, introduced the report and displayed an aerial photograph of the site and plans of the proposed extension, along with photographs of the rear of the property and views from the neighbouring property.

The determining issues for consideration were:

• Principle of development; • Impact on the character of the area and streetscene; and • Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

The officer’s recommendation was for refusal.

The committee supported the recommendation for refusal, thinking the proposed extension very overbearing and bulky.

The committee voted on the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED , 8 Councillors voting FOR refusal, no Councillors voting AGAINST refusal and no Councillors ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED, as set out in Part 1, Appendix A of these minutes.

Cllr Graham returned to the room.

114 PART 2 – South Downs National Park – Applications and related planning matters to be determined or considered by the Council on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority.

115 SECTION 1 – APPLICATIONS REPORTED IN DETAIL

(i) SDNP/13/04428/HOUS – 11a Ramsdean Road, Stroud, Petersfield, Hampshire, GU32 3PJ – Single storey extension to rear.

Nigel Jarvis, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report and displayed an aerial photograph of the site and plans of the proposed extension, along with photographs of the front and rear of the property.

The determining issues for consideration were:

• Principle of development; • Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties; • Impact on the character of the area and highway implications; and • Impact on the South Downs National Park.

18 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

The officer’s recommendation was for permission.

Cllr David McKinney spoke on behalf of Stroud Parish Council.

He explained that Stroud Parish Council objected to this application. The property had been subject to a number of previous applications and it was itself an extension to the adjoining property. Stroud Parish Council thought that the application went against Policies HE2 and P6 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review, in that the proposed extension would not be in keeping with the design, scale and character of the building and had the potential to cause overshadowing to number 11 and a loss of privacy to number 13.

The committee had mixed opinions, thinking that the proposed extension would have little architectural interest and not improve or enhance the South Downs National Park. However, it wouldn’t be that different to the extension that had been built on the rear of the adjoining property.

The committee voted on the officer’s recommendation for permission, as amended by the supplementary matters sheet.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED , 6 Councillors voting FOR permission, 2 Councillors voting AGAINST permission and 1 Councillor ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED, as set out in Part 1, Appendix A of these minutes.

.. Chairman

The meeting commenced at 6.30pm and concluded at 9.53pm

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

Annex A 28 November 2013 Planning Committee

Supplementary Matters to be considered as part of Planning Officer's Report on Planning Applications.

S1 Item 01 Bramshott Place Phase 4 Site, King Georges Drive, Liphook 54599/001/FUL

AMENDMENTS RECEIVED

Up-dated footpath plan received 22 November 2013 ref: 18027 L07 rev B

FURTHER CONSULTEE COMMENTS

County Highway Authority - raises no objection to this Application subject to the following Section 106 Obligations:

− A financial Contribution of £158,265 − The extension of the existing taxi or mini bus service to serve the extension of the retirement village; − To enter into a Section 278 Agreement with the County Council in respect of the temporary access including its removal; − The approval of an updated Full Travel Plan for the retirement village prior to commencement of the development; − The approval of a Full Travel Plan for the care home prior to commencement of the development; − Implementation of the approved Travel Plans prior to occupation of the site; − Payment by the developer of HCC fees in respect of approval and monitoring of the Full Travel Plans prior to occupation; − Provision of a bond or other form of financial surety in respect of the measures included within the agreed Travel Plans.

CHA suggest the inclusion of a planning condition to cover construction traffic arrangements.

FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS

One further letter of comment has been received raising concerns regarding the Planning Performance Agreement on the website and whether or not it may have an impact on the considerations and decisions of the Planning Committee. One further letter received in response to letter dated 12 November 2013 from the agent, raising concerns about the development. The comments made mainly disagree with points raised by the agent in response to a letter of objection from Ian Ellis, on behalf of a group of residents of Bramshott Place. No new points have been raised. CHANGES TO RECOMMENDATION

20 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

Amended Recommendation

Subject to, by 10 January 2014, all interested parties entering into an acceptable legal obligation being submitted to secure: a) restriction of occupancy to 55 yrs or above; b) an up-dated residential travel plan for the entire retirement village and travel plan for the care home; c) financial contribution of £1080 per dwelling towards public open space provision in accordance with policy R3 of the Local Plan; d) financial contribution of £558 per dwelling towards environmental improvements in accordance with policy GS4 of the Local Plan; e) financial contribution of 11,806 per dwelling towards off-site affordable housing provision in accordance with policy H11 of the Local Plan; f) financial contribution of £158,265 towards transportation in accordance with policy GS4 of the Local Plan; g) an administration and monitoring fee of £10,000; and h) phasing of contribution payments, then, the Service Manager Planning Development be authorised to grant PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out in the main agenda and below.

However, in the event that a satisfactory legal obligation is not submitted by 10 January 2014 to secure matters a) to h) above, the permission will be refused under the adopted scheme of delegation.

Conditions 11 and 12 be omitted - the requirements are covered by conditions 10 and 13

Additional conditions:

No development hereby permitted shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan, to include details on provision to be made on site for contractors parking, construction traffic access, the turning of delivery vehicles and lorry routing as well as provisions for removing mud from vehicles and a programme of works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the development hereby permitted is commenced and retained throughout the duration of construction. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

The additional footpaths as shown on drawing 18027 L07 Rev B shall be provided in accordance with details and timescales to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The footpath provision shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details and timescales. Reason - To ensure provision of adequate alterative walking routes to prevent harm to the Wealden Heaths Special Protection Area.

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

S1 Item 02 Bramshott Place Phase 4 Site, King Georges Drive, Liphook 54599/FUL

FURTHER CONSULTEE COMMENTS

County Highway Authority - raises no objection to this Application subject to the following Section 106 Obligations:

CHA suggest the inclusion of a planning condition to cover construction traffic arrangements.

CHANGES TO RECOMMENDATION

Additional condition:

No development hereby permitted shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan, to include details on provision to be made on site for contractor’s parking, construction traffic access, the turning of delivery vehicles and lorry routing as well as provisions for removing mud from vehicles and a programme of works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the development hereby permitted is commenced and retained throughout the duration of construction. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

22 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

S1 Item 3 Ropley Lime Quarry, Soames Lane, Ropley, Alresford, SO24 0ER 20209/007/OUT

AMENDMENTS RECEIVED

Letter and plans received 26 November 2013 showing topographic survey of the site and adjacent part of Soames Lane and sightlines and protected trees for eastern (upper) access.

FURTHER CONSULTEE COMMENTS

Arboricultural Officer - Objection is raised against the proposal. The site lines required for the driveway entrance at the eastern end of the site would remove 4 trees (now the subject of a TPO). These trees are important to the character of Soames Lane at this point. As the trees are now subject to a TPO the proposal is contrary to policy C6 of the currently adopted local plan.

FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS

Representations received from County Councillor Kemp-Gee:

"1) The estimate for importing soil along Soames Lane is 10,500 tons which equates to 525 20 ton loads or 1050 10 ton loads. This is a huge and dangerous task over a short period of time and could endanger local houses and other structures and spoil the amenity of local residents. Lorries have significantly increased in size since the quarry was commissioned whilst Soames Lane remains the same. Quarrying would not have involved the frequency of such intense lorry movements. 2) Condition 20 provides for no more than 350 tons of soil to be imported a day which is either 34 lorry movements or 66 lorry movements depending on the size of the lorry. This is not appropriate and the density of lorry movements is too great. The County Council would not permit normally more than half these movements down a single track road in a Minerals and Waste application. Please may there be no more than 18 or 33 lorry movements a day depending on whether 20 or 10 ton loads are used. I sincerely hope you will take my views, acting on behalf of constituents, into consideration on matters which are properly the province of the County Council."

Second comment: "In the email just sent to you I did of course mean over 10,000 tons of soil"

CHANGES TO RECOMMENDATION

Amended recommendation:

That: a) the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to draw up a S106 legal obligation, and b) subject to all interested parties entering into the S106 legal obligation by 31

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

January 2014 to secure revocation of application 20209/006 without payment of any compensation, then OUTLINE PERMISSION be granted subject to the conditions set out in the main agenda.

However, in the event that a satisfactory S106 legal obligation is not completed by 31 January 2014, then permission will be refused under the adopted scheme of delegation.

Additional conditions:

Before any works, including demolition and restoration, take place on site, details of the restoration proposals shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include final restored levels, areas where sub and top soil are to be laid and to what depth, proposals for seeding of top soil, maintenance of any areas that are not within private gardens and scaled profiles of existing and proposed quarry and restoration levels. The restoration shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure the site is satisfactorily restored

Materials imported to the site shall only be sub and top soil for restoration purposes, as set out in Condition ... only and no other materials, except those necessary for the construction phase of the development. The sub and top soil shall be of a quality suitable for restoration purposes, without any further processing or screening on site. Reason - In the interests of the amenity of the area.

S1 Item 06 42a Drift Road, Clanfield, Waterlooville, PO8 0NH 21987/003/HSE

AMENDMENTS RECEIVED

Further information has been received showing the 25 and 45 degree testing from the ground-floor window within 42 Drift Road in an attempt to show there would not be a material loss of light (plans attached).

24 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

Part 1

EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE

Applications determined by the Council as the Local Planning Authority

APPENDIX A

PS.415/2013 28 November 2013

PROPOSAL OUTLINE - SIX DWELLINGS WITH GARAGES/OFFICES. REINSTATEMENT OF EXISTING QUARRY LANDSCAPING AND RECONTOURING OF SITE (AS AMENDED BY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 07/08/2013) LOCATION: Ropley Lime Quarry, Soames Lane, Ropley, Alresford, SO24 0ER REFERENCE NO: 20209/007/OUT/JM a) the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to draw up a S106 legal obligation, and b) subject to all interested parties entering into the S106 legal obligation by 31 January 2014 to secure revocation of application 20209/006 without payment of any compensation, then OUTLINE PERMISSION be granted subject to the conditions set out in the main agenda.

However, in the event that a satisfactory S106 legal obligation is not completed by 31 January 2014, then permission will be refused under the adopted scheme of delegation.

1 Applications for the approval of the matters referred to herein shall be made within a period of three years from the date of this permission. The development to which the permission relates shall be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:- (i) three years from the date of this permission; or (ii) two years from the final approval of the said reserved matters, or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. Reason - To comply with the provisions of Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.

2 No development shall start on site until plans and particulars showing

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

details relating to access, landscaping, layout, and scale of the development shall be submitted to, and approved by the Planning Authority. These detai ls shall comprise the 'reserved matters' and shall be submitted within the time constraints referred to in Condition 1 above before any development is commenced. Reason - To comply with Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order).

3 No development shall start on site until a restoration and construction method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, which shall include: (a) A programme of and phasing of demolition, restoration and construction work; (b) The provision of long term facilities for contractor parking; (c) The arrangements for deliveries associated with all restoration and construction works; (d) Methods and phasing of restoration and construction works; (e) Access and egress for plant and machinery; (f) Location of temporary site buildings, compounds, construction material, and plant storage areas; (g) Controls over dust, noise, and vibration during the restoration and construction period; (h) Provision for storage, collection, and disposal of rubbish from the development during restoration and construction period; and (i) Re-use of on site material and spoil arising from site clearance, restoration or demolition work. Demolition, site restoration and construction work shall only take place in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason - In order that the Planning Authority can properly consider the effect of the works on the amenity of the locality.

4 The levels of the finished development shall be in accordance with the approved plans. Reason - To ensure that a harmonising visual relationship is achieved between the new and existing developments.

5 No development shall start on site until details of any surface water drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details should include provision for all surface water drainage from parking areas and areas of hardstanding. The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for drainage.

6 No development shall start on site until a site investigation has been carried out to assess the adequacy and integrity of the existing septic tank/cesspit/ soakaway for the proposed development and details of any

26 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

work required as a result of the investigation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for drainage.

7 No development shall start on site until details of a scheme to prevent surface water from the site discharging on to the adjacent highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for surface water drainage and avoid discharge of water onto the public highway.

8 The proposed hard surface/s shall either be made of porous materials or provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the hard surface/s to a permeable or porous surface within the site. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for surface water drainage and avoid discharge of water onto the public highway.

9 Before any part of the development is first occupied a verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in writing, to the Planning Authority, confirming that the built development hereby permitted incorporates measures that provide at least 10% of the predicted energy requirement from on-site renewable sources, or, provided that first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority before development starts on site, an alternative means of achieving an equivalent energy saving. The developer shall nominate a competent person for the purpose of assessing and providing the above required report and certificate to confirm that the completed works incorporate such measures as to provide the required energy savings. The energy saving works set out in the above report shall thereafter be maintained so that the required energy saving is sustained at the certified level for the lifetime of the development. (Note:- The carbon savings which result from these measures are required to be above and beyond any savings provided by measures incorporated into the development to comply with Part L Building Regulations). Reason - To ensure that the development incorporates necessary mitigation and adaptation measures with regard to climate change.

10 No development shall start on site until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority :- (a) a desk top study report, documenting all the previous and existing land uses both on and adjacent to the site and including a conceptual site model and preliminary risk assessment. The report should be completed by a competent person and produced in

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

accordance with national guidance, as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report No.11 and BS10175:2001; and unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority:- (b) a scheme outlining a site investigation and risk assessments designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site; (c) a written report of the findings which includes, a description of the extent, scale and nature of contamination, an assessment of all potential risks to known receptors, an update of the conceptual site model (devised in the desktop study), identification of all pollutant linkages and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and identified as unnecessary in the written report, an appraisal of remediation options and proposal of the preferred option(s) identified as appropriate for the type of contamination found on site; and unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority:- (d) a detailed remediation scheme designed to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment. The scheme should include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works, site management procedures and a verification plan outlining details of the data to be collected in order to demonstrate the completion of the remediation works and any arrangements for the continued monitoring of identified pollutant linkages. Site works and details submitted shall be in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person . The above reports and site works should be undertaken in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

11 Before any part of the development is occupied or used (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation works carried out and a completion certificate confirming that the approved remediation scheme has been implemented in full shall both have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to

28 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

12 All development shall be stopped immediately in the event that contamination not previously identified is found to be present on the development site and details of the contamination shall be reported immediately in writing to the Planning Authority.

Development shall not re-start on site until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority:- (a) a scheme outlining a site investigation and risk assessments designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site. (b) a written report of the findings which includes, a description of the extent, scale and nature of contamination, an assessment of all potential risks to known receptors, an update of the conceptual site model (devised in the desktop study), identification of all pollutant linkages and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and identified as unnecessary in the written report, an appraisal of remediation options and proposal of the preferred option(s) identified as appropriate for the type of contamination found on site and (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) (c) a detailed remediation scheme designed to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment. The scheme should include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works, site management procedures and a verification plan outlining details of the data to be collected in order to demonstrate the completion of the remediation works and any arrangements for the continued monitoring of identified pollutant linkages; and before any part of the development is occupied or used (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation works carried out and a completion certificate confirming that the approved remediation scheme has been implemented in full shall both have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The above site works, details and certification submitted shall be in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, prop erty and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

13 Prior to commencement of any works on site, including demolition and restoration , a detailed scheme of ecological mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures (to include but not necessarily be restricted to: timing and methods of vegetation removal, type and

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

location of e.g. bat and bird boxes, details of new planting/seeding, protected species mitigation measures) to be incorporated into the development shall be submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To protect and enhance biodiversity in accordance with NPPF and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

14 No development shall start on site, including demolition and site restoration, until details of the design, layout, position, depth/height, dimension, and level, of all building foundations, overhead and underground services, trenches, drains, ditches, and other excavations/installations on site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before and demolition or restoration works commence on site. Reason - To ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability.

15 Before any works commence on site , details of kerb side storage areas for bin collection days shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The bin collection point shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before first occupation of any dwellings on the site. Reason - To protect the amenity of occupants of the site.

16 Before each dwelling is first occupied 3 car parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of each dwelling on the site and subsequently maintained and kept available solely for that purpose, in accordance with the details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure adequate car parking provision within the site.

17 Before any works, including demolition and restoration commence on site , a Highway Condition Survey Soames Lane shall be undertaken and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Reason - To ensure the highway is protected for the safety of other highway users and having regard to Section 59 of the Highways Act 1980.

18 Before any works commence on site, including demolit ion and restoration, a traffic management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved traffic management plan. Reason - In the interests of highway safety and the amenity of neighbouring properties.

19 Before any works, including demolition and restoration, commence on site, a topographical survey demonstrating visibility splays of 2.4 by 34 m west bound and 2.4 by 38 m east bound and both access points can be

30 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

achieved, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. The sightlines shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans before first occupation of any of the dwellings here by permitted. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

20 During the development, no more that 330 tonnes of sub or top soil shall be imported to the site in any one working day. Reason - In the interests of the amenity of the area.

21 No lorries exceeding a tare (unladen weight) of 11.7 tonnes, and a gross laden weight of 30 tonnes, shall access or egress the site at any time without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. No articulated lorries are to access or egress the site at any time. Reason - In the interest of the amenity of the locality.

22 No lorries shall access or egress the site or restoration works shall take place other than between the hours of 08:00 and 17:00 Monday to Friday inclusive. No lorries shall access or egress the site or restoration works shall take place on Saturdays, Sundays, Bank Holidays or public holidays. Reason - In the interests of the amenity of the site.

23 No chalk, sub or top soil shall be exported from the site. Reason - To limit lorry movements to and from the site in the interests of the amenity of the area.

24 Before any works, including demolition and restoration, take place on site, details of the restoration proposals shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include final restored levels, areas where sub and top soil are to be laid and to what depth, proposals for seeding of top soil, maintenance of any areas that are not within private gardens and scaled profiles of existing and proposed quarry and restoration levels. The scheme shall include the total volumes of sub and top soil to be imported to the site. The site restoration shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure the site is satisfactorily restored

25 Materials imported to the site shall only be sub and top soil for restoration purposes only, up to the total volumes to be agreed in Condition 24 and no other materials, except those necessary for the construction phase of the development. The sub and top soil shall be of a quality suitable for restoration purposes, without any further processing or screening on site. Reason - In the interests of the amenity of the area.

26 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars:

Covering Letter 6th June 2013 Application Form Drg No. 001_AA20 - Location Plan 1:1250 Drg No. 003_AA20C - Layout proposals 1:1000

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

Drg No. App 2.1 - Local designations Drg No. App 2.2 - Viewpoint location plan Drg No. App 2.3b - Viewpoint 5, 6 & 7 Drg No. App 2.3a - Viewpoint 1,2,3 & 4 Drg No. 002_AA20 - Vegetation summary Planning Design & Access Statement Speed and traffic report Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development

Informative Notes to Applicant:

1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach and works with applicants/agents on development proposals in a manner focused on solutions by: offering a pre-application advice service,

• updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,

• by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter. In this instance, the agent was provided with pre-application advice and was updated of any issues after the initial site visit and during consideration of the application.

PROPOSAL OUTLINE - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR SEVEN DWELLINGS, OF WHICH 2 WOULD BE AFFORDABLE, WITH ACCESS VIA HEADLEY FIELDS LOCATION: Land south of, Headley Fields, Headley, Bordon REFERENCE NO: 25030/003/OUT/RH

Subject to the receipt of a satisfactory Section106 legal obligation to secure the affordable housing units and appropriate financial contributions towards public open space, transportation and environmental improvements in accordance with policies GS4, R3 and T2 of the Local Plan, then the Service Manager Planning Development be authorised to grant OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out below:

However, in the event that a satisfactory legal obligation and/or satisfactory safety audit is not secured by 23 January 2014, then outline permission will be refused under the adopted scheme of delegation.

32 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

1 Applications for the approval of the matters referred to herein shall be made within a period of three years from the date of this permission. The development to which the permission relates shall be begun not later than two years from the final approval of the said reserved matters, or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. Reason - To comply with the provisions of Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.

2 No development shall start on site until plans and particulars showing details relating to the appearance, layout, scale, landscaping and access to the development, has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. These details shall comprise the 'reserved matters' and shall be submitted within the time constraints referred to in Condition 1 above, before any development is commenced. Reason - To comply with Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order).

3 No development shall start on site until details of a scheme to prevent surface water from the site discharging on to the adjacent highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for surface water drainage and avoid discharge of water onto the public highway.

4 No development shall start on site until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. − a specification of the type of construction for the roads and footpaths, including all relevant horizontal cross-sections and longitudinal sections showing the existing and proposed levels together with details of street lighting and the method of disposing surface water; − a programme for making up the roads and footpaths. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure that the roads and footpaths are constructed to a satisfactory standard.

5 No development shall start on site until plans and particulars showing details that enable vehicles to enter and leave in a forward gear have been submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the use of the development is commenced and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

6 Before first occupation of each dwelling hereby permitted, provision for on site parking for that dwelling shall have been made in accordance with the approved plans and shall be retained solely for parking purposes thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision for the approved development.

7 No development shall start on site until plans and particulars showing details of the provisions of bin/cycle storage within the site have been submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the use of the development is commenced and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision within the site.

8 Prior to the commencement of any development activities a detailed scheme of ecological mitigation measures shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall be in accordance with the outline mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures detailed within the ‘Addendum to Protected Species Report and Clarification on Ecological Mitigation Commitments’ letter report (Engain, 5th September 2013) and will include (but not necessarily be restricted to) results of updated protected species surveys; assessment of likely impacts to protected species; measures for the protection of protected species; location, extent, location and timing of vegetation management. Any such measures shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the agreed details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - In order to provide adequate mitigation for protected species and to enhance biodiversity in accordance with NPPF and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

9 No development shall start on site until plans of the site showing details of the existing and prop osed ground levels, proposed finished floor levels, levels of any paths, drives, garages and parking areas and the proposed completed height of the development and any retaining walls have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority . The details shall clearly identify the relationship of the proposed ground levels and proposed completed height with adjacent buildings. The development thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure that a satisfactory relationship results between the new development and adjacent buildings and public areas.

10 No development hereby permitted nor any related site clearance shall commence until a specification of measures to be undertaken to prevent damage to existing trees and hedgerow on the site throughout implementation of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All measures forming part of such

34 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

approved specification shall be undertaken and fully adhered to at all times while such implementation is in progress. Any such tree or hedgerow which is nevertheless seriously damaged during that implementation shall be replaced within 6 months of the occurrence of such damage by another of the same species in the same position and of not less than 3 metres in height when planted. Reason - To safeguard the continued health and presence of such existing vegetation and protect the amenities of the locality.

11 No development shall commence until a drainage strategy detailing any on and/or off site drainage works, has been submitted to and approved by, the local planning authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be accepted into the public system until the drainage works referred to in the strategy have been completed. Reason - To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community.

12 No development shall commence on site until a construction method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, which shall include:

• Location of temporary site buildings, compounds, construction material, and plant storage areas; • Controls over dust, noise, and vibration during the construction period with regard to the Code of Practice - Control of noise from construction and open sites BS 5228 (2009); • Provision for storage, collection, and disposal of rubbish from the development during construction period; • Measures to protect existing natural features including hedgerows, trees, and ditches; • Re-use of on site material and spoil arising from any site clearance • A lighting strategy (designed to avoid spillage onto adjacent habi tat features such as hedgerows, and therefore impacts on species using them). Demolition and construction work shall only take place in accordance with the approved method statement.

Reason - In order that the Planning Authority can properly consider the effect of the works on the amenity of the locality and ensure a satisfactory development including, the adequate protection of existing features such as hedgerows through construction and to mitigate the effect of development upon the amenities of adjacent development.

13 Before any part of the development is first occupied a verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Authority, confirming that the built development hereby permitted incorporates measures that provide at least 10% of the predicted energy requirement from on-site renewable sources, or, provided that first agreed

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

in writing by the Planning Authority before development starts on site, an alternative means of achieving an equivalent energy saving. The developer shall nominate a competent person for the purpose of assessing and providing the above required report and certificate to confirm that the completed works incorporate such measures as to provide the required energy savings. The energy saving works set out in the above report shall thereafter be maintained so that the required energy saving is sustained at the certified level for the lifetime of the development. (Note:- The carbon savings which result from these measures are required to be above and beyond any savings provided by measures incorporated into the development to comply with Part L Building Regulations).

Reason - To ensure that the development incorporates necessary mitigation and adaptation measures with regard to climate change. 14 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars:

Application Form Location Plan Location and Site Plan Planning Statement Ecological Appraisal Drg No. 13/4092 - Survey

Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development

Informative Notes to Applicant:

• updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,

• by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter. In this instance:

• the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit,

2 Surface Water Drainage With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a

36 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777. Reason - to ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall not be detrimental to the existing sewerage system.

Water Comments With regard to water supply, this comes within the area covered by the South East Water Company. For your information the address to write to is - South East Water Company, 3 Church Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex. RH16 3NY. Tel: 01444-448200. Supplementary comments included as an informative.

3 Please note that there is a Section 106 Agreement that applies to this permission.

4 The applicant is advised that there is a fee for the discharge of conditions relating to this application. A single fee will apply to each batch of conditions submitted for discharge at the same time. The information to discharge a condition will not be accepted by the Council without the appropriate fee. The schedule of fees can be found on the Council's website.

PROPOSAL ATTACHED DWELLING LOCATION: 35 The Spinney, Horndean, Waterlooville, PO8 9PN REFERENCE NO: 54778/002/FUL/PDR

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this planning permission. Reason - To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

2 Before any part of the development is first occupied a verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in writing, to the Planning Authority, confirming that the built development hereby permitted incorporates measures that provide at least 10% of the predicted energy requirement from on-site renewable sources, or, provided that first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority before development starts on site, an alternative means of achieving an

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

equivalent energy saving. The developer shall nominate a competent person for the purpose of assessing and providing the above required report and certificate to confirm that the completed works incorporate such measures as to provide the required energy savings. The energy saving works set out in the above report shall thereafter be maintained so that the required energy saving is sustained at the certified level for the lifetime of the development. (Note:- The carbon savings which result from these measures are required to be above and beyond any savings provided by measures incorporated into the development to comply with Part L Building Regulations). Reason - To ensure that the development incorporates necessary mitigation and adaptation measures with regard to climate change.

3 Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no development falling within Classes (A, B, C, D or E) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 shall be carried out without the prior consent of the Planning Authority, through submission of a formal planning application. Reason - In order that the Planning Authority can properly consider the effect of any future proposals on the character and amenity of the locality.

4 No development shall start on site until details of a scheme to prevent surface water from the site discharging on to the adjacent highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for surface water drainage and avoid discharge of water onto the public highway.

5 No development shall start on site until the access, including the footway and/or verge crossing shall be constructed and lines of sight of 2.4 metres by 14 metres provided in accordance with the approved plans. The lines of sight splays shown on the approved plans shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 1 metre in height above the adjacent carriageway and shall be subsequently maintained so thereafter. Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interests of highway safety.

6 Before use of the development is commenced the existing accesses from the site to. The Spinney shall be permanently stopped up and effectively closed with the footway provided or verge reinstated, in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

7 The parking spaces shown on the approved plans shall only be used for parking purposes and not for the storage of boats, caravans, and trailers.

38 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

Reason - To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision for the approved development.

8 All development shall be stopped immediately in the event that contamination not previously identified is found to be present on the development site and details of the contamination shall be reported immediately in writing to the Planning Authority. Development shall not re-start on site until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority:- (a) a scheme outlining a site investigation and risk assessments designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site. (b) a written report of the findings which includes, a description of the extent, scale and nature of contamination, an assessment of all potential risks to known receptors, an update of the conceptual site model (devised in the desktop study), identification of all pollutant linkages and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and identified as unnecessary in the written report, an appraisal of remediation options and proposal of the preferred option(s) identified as appropriate for the type of contamination found on site and (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) (c) a detailed remediation scheme designed to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment. The scheme should include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works, site management procedures and a verification plan outlining details of the data to be collected in order to demonstrate the completion of the remediation works and any arrangements for the continued monitoring of identified pollutant linkages; and before any part of the development is occupied or used (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation works carried out and a completion certificate confirming that the approved remediation scheme has been implemented in full shall both have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The above site works, details and certification submitted shall be in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.

Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

9 External facing materials shall match as closely as possible those on 35 The Spinney. Reason - In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

10 Before use of the development is commenced provision for parking

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

shall have been made within the site in accordance with the approved plans and shall be retained solely for parking purposes thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision for the approved development.

11 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars:

Application Form Design and Access Statement 1:500 Block Plan 1:1250 Location Plan Drg No. 220113 - Proposed floor and elevation plans Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development

Informative Notes to Applicant:

• offering a pre-application advice service,

• updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,

• by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter. In this instance

• the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, the application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was required.

2 The applicant is advised that there is a fee for the discharge of conditions relating to this application. A single fee will apply to each batch of conditions submitted for discharge at the same time. The information to discharge a condition will not be accepted by the Council without the appropriate fee. The schedule of fees can be found on the Council's website.

3 Environmental Health recommends developers follow the risk management framework provided in 'CLR 11: Model procedures for the Management of Land Contamination' when dealing with land affected by contamination. A leaflet entitled "Development on Potentially Contaminated Land" is available as a download on the following East

40 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

Hampshire District Council website http://www.easthants.gov.uk/ehdc/formsfordownload.nsf/a102035b40020 6d780256c2a0034783b/7685aaac1f5cda6e8025753e005b5314?OpenDo cument

This contains a template for a Completion Statement. This should be completed by the applicant at the end of the development, regardless of whether contamination was investigated/discovered on site. Approval of this statement will enable discharge of the contaminated land condition.

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

Part 1

EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE

Applications determined by the Council as the Local Planning Authority

APPENDIX B

PS.415/2013 28 November 2013

PROPOSAL 40 COTTAGES, 64 BEDROOMED CARE HOME WITH ASSOCIATED BIN STORES, CAR PARKING, GARAGES, GROUND MODELLING, LANDSCAPING AND ACCESS. EXTENSION TO EXISTING CLUB HOUSE LOCATION: Bramshott Place Phase 4 Site, King Georges Drive, Liphook REFERENCE NO: 54599/001/FUL/JM

1 The proposed development lies in countryside, which is outside of and is physically and visually divorced from any Settlement Policy Boundary. The proposal, by reason of its position and relationship to the settlement would not harmonise with the pattern and character of the settlement and would not be a sustainable extension to the settlement of Liphook. As such, the proposal fails to meet the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the criteria set out in the Interim Housing Policy Statement and policies H13, GS1 and GS3 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

2 Notwithstanding the proposed provision towards off-site contributions towards affordable housing, the proposal does not include any on-site affordable housing provision. The proposal fails to provide an inclusive and mixed community in accordance with the aims and objectives of the NPPF and policies H11 and H13 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

3 The care home, by reason of its mass, scale and appearance and its location on the edge of the development would be detrimental to the character and appearance of this countryside location, contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF and policy HE1 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review. 4 No provision has been made for public open space within the proposal contrary to policies R3 and GS4 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second

42 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

Review.

5 No provision has been made towards environmental improvements, contrary to policy GS4 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review and the Council's 'Guide to Developers' Contributions and Other Planning Requirements'.

6 No provision has been made towards integrated transportation measures with the proposal, contrary to policies GS4 and T10 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review and the Council's 'Guide to Developers' Contributions and Other Planning Requirements'.

Informative Notes to Applicant:

Please note that there is a Section 106 Agreement that applies to this permission.

PROPOSAL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTE (AS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 16/10/2013) LOCATION: Bramshott Place Phase 4 Site, King Georges Drive, Liphook REFERENCE 54599/FUL/JM NO:

1 In the absence of an approved development proposal, the temporary construction access constitutes unwarranted intrusion of development into the countryside, for which there is no essential need, contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF and policy GS3 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

PROPOSAL FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION TO REAR, CONVERSION OF INTERNAL GARAGE TO HABITABLE ACCOMMODATION, WITH BAY WINDOW AND REPLACE FLAT ROOF AND EXISTING FRONT DORMER WITH PITCHED ROOF (AS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 15/11/2013 AND 27/11/2013) LOCATION: 42a Drift Road, Clanfield, Waterlooville, PO8 0NH REFERENCE NO: 21987/003/HSE/BB

1 The proposal, by reason of its height, bulk and position would result in an overbearing relationship with the neighbouring prope rty, detrimental to the

Planning Committee (28.11.13)

amenity and outlook of the occupiers of the adjacent residential property contrary to policies GS2, HE1 and HE2 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

Informative Notes to Applicant:

• offering a pre-application advice service,

• updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,

• by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter. In this instance was provided with pre-application advice and the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit.

44 PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 November 2013

Part 2

EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE

Applications determined by the Council on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority

APPENDIX A

PS.415/2013 28 November 2013

SDNP/13/04428/HOUS Permission subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A. 11A Ramsdean Road, Stroud, GU32 3PJ.

SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO REAR

01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason -To comply with the provisions of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)./ To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

02. The external materials to be used shall match, as closely as possible, in type, colour, and texture those of the existing building. Reason - To ensure that a harmonious visual relationship is achieved between the new and the existing developments.

03. Approved Plans

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans listed below under the heading "Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Application". Reason - For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.