Major Application

Cttee: 2 December Item No. 1 2015

Application no: 15/02708/OUT For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Land To The North Of Sherfield Road Bramley Hampshire Proposal Outline application for residential development of up to 50 dwellings, including affordable housing with associated access, highway works, drainage works (SUDS), public open space, landscaping and any other associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except for means of access

Registered: 3 August 2015 Expiry Date: 9 November 2015 Type of Outline Planning Case Officer: Patricia Logie Application: Application 01256 845457 Applicant: Gleeson Agent: Miss Sophie Lucas Developments Limited Ward: Bramley And Ward Member(s): Cllr Chris Tomblin Sherfield Cllr Nicholas Robinson

Parish: BRAMLEY CP OS Grid Reference: 465982 159319

Recommendation: The application be APPROVED subject to no additional adverse material planning representations being raised prior to the expiry of the publicity period and the applicant being invited to enter into a legal agreement (in accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and Saved Policies C1, C2 and C9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011) between the applicant and the Borough and County Councils to secure:  40% of the units to be affordable  Landscape Management Plan  Secure on site open space  Secure on site play area/recreation

Off-site financial contributions towards;  Contribution towards Community Facilities  Contribution towards Education  Contribution towards Playing Fields

Should the requirements set out above not be satisfactorily secured, then the Planning and Development Manager be delegated to REFUSE permission for appropriate reasons.

On completion of the legal agreement and the expiry of the publicity period the Planning and Development Manager be delegated to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions: 1 of 119

Reasons for Approval

1. The proposed development would deliver housing development, including affordable housing, in accordance with the Borough's Land Supply requirements. The proposal therefore accords with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 in relation to housing supply and Saved Policy C2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

2. The proposed development would provide safe access in accordance with highway requirements, and as such would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 and with Saved Policies E1(iii) and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

3. The proposed development would have an impact on the landscape character and scenic quality of the area but the mitigation measures proposed result in a scheme that balances landscape character and scenic quality whilst delivering housing development. The proposal therefore complies National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

4. The proposed development would have no adverse harm on the setting of the Bramley Green Conservation Area. The proposal therefore complies National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

5. The proposed development would have an impact on local biodiversity but the mitigation measures proposed result in a scheme that would conserve the biodiversity value and nature conservation interests of both the site, whilst delivering housing development. The proposal therefore complies National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011Biodiversity

6. Through the provision of a Section 106 agreement the development will provide adequate infrastructure to mitigate the impact of the development in relation to community provision, open space, affordable housing, playing fields, play /recreation and education. The development therefore complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); Saved Policies C1, C2 and C9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011; the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulation 2010; the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document on Affordable Housing; Hampshire County Council ‘s adopted Transport Contributions Policy (September 2007); Hampshire County Council's Developers’ Contribution towards Children's Services Facilities and the Council's Interim Planning Guidance on S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure (July 2005, updated April 2010), Adopted Green Space Standards (adopted April 2013)

General comments

This application has been brought to the Development Control Committee, in line with the scheme of delegation, due to the number of objections received.

Planning Policy The site is located within the countryside, adjacent to the Settlement Policy Boundary of Bramley. 2 of 119

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Therefore, alongside the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF), this application must be assessed against the Development Plan which comprises the saved policies of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 (BDBLP).

The council submitted the emerging Local Plan to the Planning Inspectorate for examination on 9 October 2014. Following an Exploratory Meeting which was held in December 2014 to discuss the Inspector's initial concerns relating to the Plan. On 27 March 2015, Full Council agreed that 850dpa should be used as the annual housing requirement for the emerging Local Plan and for use in determining the borough's 5 year land supply position. Consultation on these proposed main modifications to the submission local plan took place in May/June 2015. The Examination hearings have taken place in October and November (finishing on 11 November) and response from the Planning Inspector is awaited.

Paragraph 216 of the NPPF provides guidance on the weight that can be given to relevant policies in emerging plans. Until a response is received from PIN's the weight given to the ELP cannot increase even though the EIP has taken place.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied, and is a material consideration in the determination of this planning application.

Decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the purposes of decision- taking, Paragraph 211 of the NPPF is clear that the policies within the Local Plan should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of the Framework. Paragraph 212 is clear that the policies within the NPPF are material considerations which Local Planning Authorities should take into account from the day of publication (27 March 2012).

Given that the saved policies of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011 were not adopted in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (but were adopted under the transitional arrangements), Paragraph 215 of the NPPF is considered to apply to the current Local Plan. This states: due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the framework, the greater the weight may be given to them).

This means that full weight cannot be given to the saved policies of the current Local Plan and therefore, in determining applications, consideration needs to be given to the degree of consistency a saved policy has with regard to the NPPF. As detailed below, it is considered that the saved policies of the Local Plan have a limited degree of conflict with the NPPF and therefore it is right that some weight be attached to them in decision making.

3 of 119

The relevant policies of the NPPF will be discussed in greater detail below, however it is considered that the following sections of the NPPF contain policies material to the assessment of this application:

Achieving Sustainable Development Core Planning Principles Section 4: Promoting Sustainable Transport Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7: Requiring Good Design Section 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment Section 12: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies)

Policy D5 (Residential and other Development within Settlements) Policy D6 (New Residential Accommodation in the Countryside) Policy E1 (Development Control) Policy E6 (Landscape Character) Policy E7 (Nature/Biodiversity Conservation) Policy A1 (Car Parking) Policy A2 (Encouraging Walking, Cycling and the Use of Public Transport) Policy A3 (Infrastructure Improvements) Policy A7 (Water and Sewerage Infrastructure) Policy C1 (Section 106 Agreements) Policy C2 (Affordable Housing) Policy C3 (Housing Mix) Policy C9 (New Leisure Facilities or Open Spaces)

Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance

Appendices 1-3 Design and Sustainability SPD (Overarching policies); Appendix 5 Design and Sustainability SPD (Construction Statements) Appendix 6 Design and Sustainability SPD (Waste and Recycling) Appendix 7 Design and Sustainability SPD (Places to Live) Appendix 14 Design and Sustainability SPD (Countryside Design Summary) Residential Parking Standards SPD Affordable Housing SPG Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards SPD Landscape Character Assessment SPG Landscape and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document Trees and Development SPG S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Planning Guidance Adopted Interim Green Space Standards Residential Amenity Design Guidance

Other material documents

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 Basingstoke Environment Strategy for Transport (BEST) SPG Manual for Streets Hampshire County Council 'Companion Guide to Manual for Streets' Hampshire Highways Transport Contributions Policy

4 of 119

Hampshire County Council's Developers' Contribution towards Children's Services Facilities Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment National Planning Practice Guidance Town and Country Planning (Development Management) Procedure Order

Description of Site

The site is located adjacent to the village of Bramley, adjacent to the Settlement policy boundary and is therefore considered to be in the open countryside. It has an area of 4.7 hectares and is relatively flat but slopes gently down from the road into the site to Bramley Green stream which marks the northern boundary of the site. The current use is agriculture and the site is currently two fields.

To the north there is open countryside that rises up away from the site with hedgerows, trees and agricultural buildings. Dominant in the view are the electricity pylons and overhead wires. The open countryside adjoins the east and further along Sherfield Road (travelling east) is the Bramley Green Conservation Area

To the south is Sherfield Road and the residential development of Bramley, some houses front Sherfield Road at this point but there is the access to three residential cul de sacs; Dollis Close, The Smith and Farriers Close. There is a Thames Water facility located between the site and the Sherfield Road for part of the southern boundary.

To the west is Strawberry Fields a modern housing development. The boundary adjacent to it is tree lined and there is a public footpath on the Strawberry Field's development adjacent to the site boundary.

The site is located within Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3.

Proposal

This is an outline application for the development of the site for up to 50 dwellings, 40% proposed to be affordable. Along with the principle of development only access is being the only matter for considered at this time. If the outline application was approved then all other matters (layout, landscaping, scale and appearance) would be considered under subsequent reserved matters planning applications.

The proposed access is from Sherfield Road and uses the existing access that services the agricultural use of the site.

An illustrative layout has been submitted that shows a possible layout with retention of existing boundary planting and additional planting to provide a landscaped elevation fronting Sherfield Road. The housing is set behind this in a cul de sac formation with development shown along Sherfield Road and adjacent to some of Strawberry Fields.

Public Open Space (POS) is shown on the indicative layout between the proposed housing and the northern boundary of the site.

5 of 119

Consultations

Bramley Parish Council - Object

Bramley Parish Council on behalf of many members of the parish community object to this planning application, we also need to make it clear up front that the applicants have not engaged in public consultation nor spoken with the parish council regarding a 50 dwelling proposal on this site.

The reasons for objection are as follows:

1. The application is for development of 50 homes on a green field site outside of the Bramley settlement policy boundary (SPB). Policy D5 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC) Local Plan (adopted 2006) states that development will be permitted in Bramley within the SPB. Under the prevailing development plan policy, and as acknowledged by the applicants in paragraph 2.7 of their planning statement, this site is designated 'countryside' due to its location outside of the SPB.

2. Between 1981 and 2011 the number of dwellings in Bramley parish increased from 500 to 1662, this is an expansion of 232%. In the same period the population grew from 1420 to 4233, an increase of 198%. These rates of expansion are very far in excess of average rates across the Borough. The current population average of 2.6 per dwelling, when applied to the currently approved developments at Razors Farm and Minchens Lane, will add 1625 people to the parish with 520 (i.e. Minchens) within the village. This increases the parish population by a further 114% and adds 125% to the number of dwellings. Since 1981 there has been no significant investment in infrastructure other than a small addition to the school and a small hall.

3. Within the emerging BDBC local plan for the plan period 2011 to 2029, it is recognised that Bramley parish became a designated area for neighbourhood planning purposes' in February 2013 (local plan reference para. 4.29), and also that 'an allocation of 200 homes has been made to meet the needs of the village through Policy SS5 (Neighbourhood Planning)'. The needs of the village are defined as 72 households in housing need in the parish.

In early 2014 an application was approved for the development of 200 homes on a single site in Minchens Lane in Bramley to include 80 social and affordable homes. This development fulfils the requirement in Policy SS5. It is also important to note that up to 170 further affordable and social dwellings are being provided in the south of Bramley parish under approved application BDB/77341 for 425 dwellings in total. On approved plans to date the housing need in Bramley parish is met and substantially exceeded.

In addition to these two approved applications the emerging BDBC local development plan (LDP) allocates another site in Bramley parish at Upper Cufaude Farm (a BDBC owned property) for up to 385 homes including 40% affordable and social dwellings.

In terms of Bramley's contribution to the emerging BDBC LDP and the current issue of the five year land supply the parish is already contributing 625 dwellings with a further 385 in prospect and a total of up to 404 social and affordable dwellings versus the parish need, as stated in the emerging LDP of 72. The resources of the parish, already limited in most respects will therefore be further exceptionally over stretched

6 of 119

by an influx of residents from other parts of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough.

4. The parish council appreciates the support given by the Portfolio Holder for the LDP councillor Mark Ruffell and the previous Planning Policy Implementation Manager Andrew Hunter who have both stated that the approved development of 200 dwellings at Minchens Lane has met, in entirety, the SS5 allocation to Bramley. We also note that former Borough Councillor and Deputy BDBC Chairman Ranil Jayawardena wrote to a Bramley resident on 4th July 2014 expressing support for the NDP process and his opposition to development on Strawberry Fields.

5. The applicants' planning statement puts great emphasis on the public open space which it will be providing. It also emphasises the sustainability of the development location based on what it claims are existing amenities, services and transport links. However, the parish council would like to point out the reality of the situation:

a. The application uses flood zones 2 and 3 to provide the open green space, kick about and play area. This is by definition a very wet area and can hardly be described as useable public space. The application also proposes that play areas in other parts of Bramley village are accessible to residents on this development, however all of these play areas are south of the C32 and would necessitate children crossing this very busy and increasingly busy road at a point west of a blind bend.

b. The services referred to in the planning statement actually consist of; one very small local shop, a public house to the west of the level crossing, a bakery and car mechanics at the crossing, a primary school already at capacity and recently under special measures, some small commercial enterprises mainly employing people from outside of the Bramley area and a doctors surgery which is being expanded to accommodate the 200 homes already approved.

c. The amenities referred to consist of a small village hall, small church hall and two small halls with open space at Clift Meadow which are all west of the level crossing and thus not easily accessible to this proposed development.

d. Public transport consists of a limited bus service to Basingstoke and Tadley which does not go to the hospital, the last service to Basingstoke leaves before 6pm Mon-Fri. There are only two trains per hour to Basingstoke and Reading. There is a dangerous designated national cycle route which uses the very busy C32 and the (single track in parts) Cufaude Lane. The parish council have pointed out to BDBC and to Hampshire County Council (HCC) on a number of occasions that crossing the C32 within the SPB is extremely dangerous as there are no formal controlled crossings. The east of Bramley is the most developed and populous area within the SPB and adding more dwellings with associated people and vehicles to this area would exacerbate existing difficulties. Pavements in Bramley are typically narrow, they are not continuous on either side of the C32 and they are non-existent on most of the very busy surrounding roads. Additionally there is frequent parking on the pavement by the shop leading to great difficulty for those with push chairs and wheel chairs etc. There is a small car park near the station which is full by 0730 each day with both local residents and with commuters from outside of the parish. The railway station attracts commuters from as far as Andover which contributes to the severe parking issues throughout the village.

7 of 119 e. The transport assessment provided by the applicants includes data from many different sources and time periods presented in a form to support their conclusion (planning statement para.6.5) that the development will 'have no detrimental impact upon the local highway network', the parish council dispute this conclusion in the light of local knowledge. The parish council considers that the use of national and borough wide statistics as well as data which is no longer current, to predict the impact of this application on Bramley, is not applicable and therefore the conclusions can be deemed irrelevant.

Car ownership data for rural Hampshire in the 2011 census is approximately 1.5 cars per household. Based on the 1662 dwellings in Bramley parish in 2011 there were therefore approximately 2500 cars. Approved development applications at Minchens Lane and Razors Farm will add approximately 940 cars which is a 38% expected increase in cars within the parish. Not all vehicles from Razors Farm will travel north into Bramley village but the parish council estimates that conservatively 25% of the vehicles from Razors Farm will access the C32. The traffic impact of approved planning applications upon Bramley village will be an increase of 300 cars from Minchens Lane and 160 from Razors Farm; this will be an 18% increase in traffic using the C32. The community is already concerned with current traffic volumes and therefore increasing the volume by 18% will exacerbate the current problems. This application, using the same factor will add 75 cars and a further 3% to traffic volumes moving through the village. The community have to consider the cumulative effect of expansion in recent years and the adverse impact of each new development, a 21% increase is not sustainable on the current road network. The parish council considers that the combination of additional road traffic, combined with additional rail traffic following electrification of the rail line to accommodate increasing freight traffic, will bring Bramley to a standstill. f. The applicants' own traffic assessment indicates that over the course of 24 hours there are in excess of 4500 traffic movements on the C32 in the vicinity of the site. The applicants are proposing to provide 144 parking spaces on site; this could leave up to 69 spaces in excess of the 75 estimated car ownership volumes. Any available parking spaces in Bramley are taken up by commuters using the station and this could further worsen the traffic issues.

Traffic queuing in the east for the level crossing frequently exceeds 80 vehicles and stretches as far back as The Smithy and Farriers Close which are opposite the proposed site access. The level crossing barriers are currently down for approximately 30 mins in every hour, the barriers can be closed for up to 10 minutes at a time and occasionally when raised it is only for a brief period allowing 3-4 vehicles to cross. This pattern generates long and very slow moving queues of which the applicant makes no mention.

The applicants claim in para 2.10 of their planning statement that the site lies north of a main arterial route, this road is in fact a vastly overburdened and poorly maintained C road. The traffic burden is not just caused by the increasing volume of local traffic but also traffic moving between the A33 and the A340 as it is the only route north of Basingstoke which joins these two main arterial roads. The C32 is particularly poorly maintained east of the railway line. As a C road it has a lower Highways priority than a B road even though it carries the traffic burden of a B road by linking two A roads.

8 of 119 g. The proposed site access lies west of a blind bend on this much overburdened road and is in immediate proximity to four side roads and a number of private dwelling access points joining the C32. Due to the previously mentioned lack of

continuous pavement along the C32 the vast majority of the population from the south east of Bramley also have to cross the C32 just after this blind bend and close to the proposed site access. h. In para. 6.5 of the applicants' planning statement they state that the proposed development will 'cause no adverse impact on the scale and character of Bramley'. The reality is that Bramley has experienced significant expansion since 1988 in excess of any other area within the Borough and is still struggling to integrate the residents from the 277 dwellings in the locally titled "German Road development" which includes 47% social and affordable dwellings. This has already changed the demographics of the village. Any further increases in parish population will compound the difficulties created by the rate of expansion of Bramley. i. The same paragraph goes on to state that the proposed development will 'respect the significance of Bramley Conservation Area, retaining the locally important key views'. Any development north east of the existing SPB will have a severe adverse impact on the context and the setting of the conservation area known as Bramley Green. The open spaces within Bramley Green have been significantly eroded by recent development; these open spaces were recognised as very important to illustrate the development of the settlement as well as providing vistas through the conservation area. The settlement of Bramley Green is fast losing its historic identity and the preservation of the remaining open spaces is vital to its setting and protection of its historic significance. Development of this site will compound the erosion of Bramley's rural character in this area and will close down views north and east out of the area, from the north into the area and from Folly Lane looking west and significantly eroding the historic setting of Green Farm and The Barracks. The proposed planting plans merely seek to hide the development and not to enhance the area. j. The same paragraph again talks about 'sustainable drainage'; there are already issues with water management in the area of Strawberry Fields and Sherfield Road and problems with the sewage system in this area of Bramley. The open space and play area provision on the site is in flood zones 2 and 3 and there are no proposals to improve the drainage in these areas. k. The applicant frequently refers to the Bramley neighbourhood development plan (NDP), this NDP is only in draft form and following public consultation there will be significant amendments to the draft. Although Bramley does not yet have an NDP in place the process was used for assessing the Minchens Lane site in which public consultation accepted that this was a preferable location to that proposed by the applicants. Minchens Lane site was able to offer tangible infrastructure improvements of value to Bramley and unique to that site. The applicants' site offers no such benefits. The parish council believes that a draft neighbourhood plan carries no weight in the applicants' proposal. l. The applicants claim that this development will create jobs throughout the construction phase of the development. It must be noted that these are

9 of 119

temporary jobs and unlikely to include local Bramley people in need of work. Construction jobs will be created by development no matter where it occurs in the Borough, this is not a specific benefit to Bramley parish. The planning statement refers to the generation of new homes bonus, CIL monies and council tax as a benefit. Such benefits would similarly accrue no matter where development occurs in the Borough.

m. The applicants' reference to the NPPF and in particular the five year land supply are merely there to put pressure on BDBC. It must be clearly understood that Bramley parish is already committed to 625 dwellings with a further 385 most likely and therefore believes it has made a significant contribution to the land supply in Basingstoke and Deane. Opportunistic applications such as this, seeking to play upon the BDBC shortfall in land supply should not be approved at the expense of the Bramley community who have experienced significant expansion in recent years without improvement in structural, social and recreational infrastructure.

In conclusion Bramley parish council objects to this application as it would clearly exacerbate the existing strain on resources and all types of infrastructure which Bramley is currently experiencing. The housing need in Bramley as identified in the emerging local plan process is already met and exceeded within the parish by approved planning applications. Development of the site offers no tangible benefits to the local community and would represent a further deterioration of the quality of life for existing residents and those who will come to live on the already committed development sites. The Bramley community calls upon the Borough Council and our MP to support us by not approving further inappropriate and unsustainable development such as proposed in this application.

Additional comments were received from the Parish Council;

It has come to our attention that Saville/Gleeson have submitted to the LDP for discussion with the Inspector on October 22nd a proposal to extend development on this site eastwards. The proposal is for 80 more dwellings adjacent to the 50 dwelling application using the same access to and from the C32.

It would appear their intention is not to make the 50 dwellings the "gateway to Bramley" as they claim in the application but rather the key to an eastward march along the C32 to Folly Lane if not further.

If this 50 dwelling application is approved then it will render all our communities valid arguments irrelevant thus enabling even more un-needed and inappropriate development; adding further to the traffic issues and danger on the c32 in this area of Bramley.

No consultation of any type has been undertaken on this further 130 dwelling proposal. and

Having investigated further I now understand the situation better. They are in fact adding an additional 80 dwelling proposal from saville/gleeson. Bringing the total to 130 whilst asking the inspector to acknowledge the shlaa rating of 200 homes It is my contention that the 50 dwelling application is clearly a phase 1 of a planned larger development and as such this application should be rejected and the applicant compelled to submit an outline application covering their intentions for the whole site.

10 of 119

They insult our collective intelligence when applying for 50 using the draft NDP in their justification when their clear intention is to develop the whole site. This is an attempt to dupe us all. The documents prepared for the omission sites hearing must form part of any assessment of the current application.

Bramley Neighbourhood Planning – Objection.

The application has no respect for the true impact excessive development is going to have on existing residents, quality of life will be made miserable by the added traffic on the C32, increasing the queues at the rail crossing (barriers are down an average of 29 minutes per hour with 112 trains per day), Network Rail registers that 3200 cars cross the crossing per day.

If this is sustainable why are parking spaces provided when residents can walk, cycle or use busses or trains?

Bramley has met its 200 allocated houses by the Minchens Lane approval. If Bramley could take more than BDBC would have allocated for more. Bramley has had excessive housing over recent years with no increase in infrastructure. We have a shop, a pub and a school (bursting at the seams) and a railway station. We want the area to remain rural and not a dormitory for Basingstoke.

The 50 dwellings is taken from the draft Neighbourhood Plan, but this is for the future accepting that further housing will occur, but not for the immediate future.

Bramley need significant infrastructure improvements, without that Bramley will grind to a halt and the quality of life for residents will be miserable.

It is not just about counting housing numbers and plonking housing. The Manydown development is taking lots of preparation as quality of life is being considered.

Reject these proposals and address the infrastructure short falls before agreeing to more housing developments. Preserve Bramley as a rural village which needs infrastructure improvements and not further housing.

Lead Local Flood Authority - The proposals for surface water drainage meet the current standards/best practice in relation to surface water drainage.

Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions

Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions

Landscape - No objection subject to conditions

Highways - No objection subject to conditions

Transport - Consider that the site is in a sustainable location

Urban Design - No objection to the principle of development

Trees - No objection subject to conditions

11 of 119

Biodiversity - No objection subject to conditions

Archaeology - No objection subject to conditions

Affordable Housing - There is a need to provide 40% on site

Open Space and Play - Amount on site is / can be acceptable, more detail on maintenance required.

Thames Water - No objection subject to conditions. Comment - To the south of the proposed development sits Bramley Sewage Pumping Station. This is a Thames Water Asset. The company will seek assurances that it will not be affected by the proposed development.

Public Observations

A petition was received signed by 202 people, there was no statement with the electronic petition but it was against the application and there was space for signatories to add comments in relation to the application. The issues raised are covered within the summary of letters below.

There were 136 letters of objection to the application and the issues raised are summarized below;

Objection to the Principle of Development  Outside the SPB of Bramley, is a greenfield site, national guidance promotes brown field sites.  Bramley should not have to continuously defend itself from development because of the BDBC local plan and five year land supply issues.  Don't doubt wider BDBC need the housing but Brambly is really struggling to absorb the impact of new development and new residents.  Housing need does not exist in Bramley  With this site, Minchens Lane, Razors Farm and Cufaude Lane that is 977 houses in the Parish of Bramley  Bramley Parish has met its housing target in the draft local plan  The housing need in Bramley as identified by the emerging local plan processes already met and exceeded  Not identified in the emerging local plan, not a logical extension of Bramley  Minchens Lane development (200 houses) provided a level of housing that residents and the infrastructure of Bramley can sustain  Bramley has had more than its fair share of housing over the past 20 years.  Destroy habitat for animals and birds; red kite use these fields and barn owl frequents the trees  No benefit to the local community  Developer only looking for large profits without any regard to the local community  Loss of perfectly good agricultural land that sustains food and gives a rural appearance, the proposed public space does not provided any benefit for residents wellbeing.  Damage Bramley Green Conservation Area  Doesn't reflect or support local housing needs  More noise and disturbance.

12 of 119

 Should be looking to develop Manydown which was purchased for that purpose.  Should be looking at the cumulative effect of the proposal, not in isolation.  No environmental assessment  No community involvement  Change the feel of the village to one large housing estate, where will the housing creep and continued expansion end.  Bramley has become a soft spot for developers and has grown more rapidly than other similar villages  Bramley is reaching a tipping point and very soon will lose any village identity and become a suburb and not a village.  Not nimbyism but a recognition that there needs to be a more balanced approach to development in the wider area.  Village needs a break from development, the time taken to develop Manydown shows a consideration not afforded to the residents of Bramley  Rural feel of the village needs preserving as well as the quality of life.  Detrimental impact on the setting of Green Farm.  Loss of fields will damage the Bramley Conservation Area.  Clearly part of a larger scheme for the future.

Objections in respect of Affordable Housing  Surplus of social housing on the German Road estate suggesting that further is not required, 70% of this was social housing.  40% of Minchens Lane is social housing  Development needs to enhance and improves lives of local community not in a way that adds or creates more problems,  Aware that there have been issues for families placed in social renting struggling with the costs of living so far from town.  Some houses built for this purpose are empty as people don't want a rural location with no facilities and costly travel links.  Affordable housing is not much needed as stated by the developer as the BDBC emerging local plan states that in 2013 there were 72 households in need in Bramley Parish, since then 625 dwellings have been approved, 40% of which will be affordable thus have delivered 250 social and affordable units (80 in the village).  2011 Household tenure statistics for Bramley and Sherfield Ward show 386 social and affordable households, an increase of 40% from the 2001 number a growth in excess of the rest of Basingstoke and Deane which grew at 19.5%  The already approved development of 636 dwellings represents an increase of 130.4% from the 2001 figures  Massive and disproportionate provision is far in excess of any local need and will substantially change the demographics of the village

Objections in respect of Impact on Existing Infrastructure  Village only has very limited facilities for the existing residents, one shop with a post office, bakery, pub, garage, church, Indian restaurant, estate agent and a barbers, no dentist  Existing facilities can't support anymore growth.  Clearly exacerbate the existing strain on resources and all types of infrastructure which Bramley is currently experiencing.  No increase in shops, schools and amenities and this development will stretch existing facilities to breaking point  School has just come out of "special measures" due to the rapid expansion of the German Road estate 13 of 119

 Impact on the quality of education provided with a further demographic increase, does nothing to enhance the educational prospects of the children resident in Bramley.  School has already been expanded, can't expand anymore as it will be too big, standards are falling.  If school is full then children will need to travel by car so more traffic at peak times.  Minchens Lane and Razors Farm will increase the demand for school and doctor spaces  School is at capacity and 3 weeks wait for a doctor’s appointment, serious health implications for existing residents who rely on this service  Bramley used to be a village and it now resembles a town.  Without increasing infrastructure development will decrease the quality of life for existing and proposed new residents on those sites that already have planning permission.  No increase in employment opportunities  Don't need the new open space happy with the existing open space on which the houses would be built.  Very few local jobs and costs a lot to commute to where there are opportunities  Shortage of GP's.

Objections in respect of Highways and Access Matters  Adjoins a 'c' road not a main arterial route, Bramley is a rural community.  Sherfield Road is already a popular rat run between A339 and A340.  Due to rail crossing road is blocked to traffic for 30 minutes in every hour during day and peak times, queues back to Lane End in one direction and beyond Minchens Lane in the other.  Amount of traffic in Bramley is already totally unacceptable and to increase is ridiculous  Increase traffic in the area, more inconvenient and dangerous for uses both cars and pedestrians.  No pedestrian crossing facilities provided in the village.  Could be another 100-150 cars using the road which would cause gridlock at peak times.  Tailbacks at the railway crossing, backing up to Bramley Green, results in traffic diverting around unsuitable routes destroying verges and potential issues for farm traffic, pedestrians and cyclists who use the country lanes  Network Rail info states that over 3200 cars cross the crossing on a daily basis (2014 figures) anymore will increase the high safety risk assigned to this crossing endangering residents and vehicle users  Access is too close to Farriers Close and the bends in the road either side of the proposed access  Already have a roundabout we don't need which has made things worse as traffic from Bramley or Sherfield seem to think it's not a roundabout to stop at.  People will used the new roads to park and walk children to school, currently happens i n Strawberry Fields, provide additional parking to accommodate this_  Bramley is not well served by buses, cycle network is poor.  Pavements are block by parked cars due to inadequate parking.  140 parking spaces for 50 dwellings sounds good but not if they are garages which are not used to park cars.  Just moved from Sherfield Park which is one of the largest car parks in the borough and don't wish to return to such overcrowded conditions.  Majority of people living in Bramley work outside the village, limited employment in 14 of 119

the village.  Train goes to Reading/Basingstoke but no car parking at station which causes congestion in the residential roads.  No access to the hospital from Bramley and buses stop at 7pm  2011 census records that 2217 of 2706 people who travel from Bramley and Sherfield Ward only 12% use train or bus.  Reality of a rural location is the infrequent bus which does not serve the major employment areas of NHH, Chineham Business Park or AWE, application does not minimise the need to travel by private car.  Particularly concerned for children using the road as there is already a significant traffic flow and the island encourages children to wait in the middle of the road and large vehicles mount the pavement to pass, number of near misses more cars will make it worse.

Objections in respect of Flooding Issues  Bramley is wet and the development site is in the floodplain, what happens to the excess water if the land has been developed? Will it flood existing properties?  Flooding of one’s home is an appalling event and would not wish it on anyone  My garden already floods after heavy rain, sometimes with sewage.  Uses flood zone 2 and 3 for open green space, kick about and play area is totally impractical. By definition a very wet area can hardly be described as useable public space.  Flooding in 2007 extended beyond the floodzone 3 map, 42 Strawberry Field garage flooded and this is outside the floodzone 3 map.  Flood calculations are incorrect, area is in m2 but should be volume in m3.  Why build on a floodplain? People need to live somewhere but needs to be fit for purpose. This development puts both new and existing residents at an increased risk of flooding.  The loss of open countryside in close proximity to a Conservation Area to be replaced by access to a floodplain, which is very unlikely to be usable for much of the year, is not a benefit and is a detrimental impact of the proposed development.  Oliver's Lane was closed to traffic for 3 months in the winter of 2013 due to flooding.  System can't cope with the existing high levels of rainfall, what happens when you build more?

Relevant Planning History

14/00579/ENSC Request for screening opinion for proposed ECOM 31.03.14 development of up to 200 dwellings

14/01094/ENS Request for scoping opinion for proposed ECOM 01.07.15 residential development of up to 200 dwellings

Assessment

Introduction

The key issues to consider in this case and as reported below are:  Requirements for an Outline Application  Principle of Development Housing Supply 15 of 119

Prematurity Currents sites status and Impacts of the sites development Neighbourhood Planning  Sustainable Development Economic Social Environmental  Flood Risk and Drainage  Highway Assessment  Impact on Landscape Character and Visual Amenity  Density  Character of the Development  Impact on heritage assets  Biodiversity Implications  Green Space Standards  Other Section 106 Contributions  Contamination  Other matters Departure Agricultural land Statement of Community Involvement Response to other matters raised in representations  Conclusion

Requirements for an Outline Planning Application

This outline application seeks to establish the general principle of up to 50 dwellings on the site. Outline planning permission can be granted subject to conditions requiring the subsequent approval of one or more 'reserved matters'. Reserved matters are those aspects of a proposed development which an applicant can choose not to submit details of with an outline planning application, (i.e. they can be 'reserved' for later determination).

In this case in addition to the principle of development the application also seeks the detail relating to the access at this stage. Article 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (DMPO) defines these as;

'Access' - the accessibility to and within the site, for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians in terms of the positioning and treatment of access and circulation routes and how these fit into the surrounding access network.

All other matters; layout, scale, appearance and landscape are reserved for future consideration. In England, Article 4(3) of the DMPO states that:

'where layout is a reserved matter the application for outline planning permission shall state the approximate location of buildings, routes and open spaces included in the development proposed;'

The National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) which supports the NPPF states that outline applications need to provide the following; 'Information about the proposed use or uses, and the amount of development proposed for each use, is necessary to allow consideration of an application for outline planning permission.'

16 of 119

Therefore the information provided has to be sufficient to demonstrate that the principle of the development and its use can be considered in relation to the site specific constraints of the site, and any adjoining sites / uses. This application was supported by the following;

Site Location Plan - 1177.01 Land Use Parameters Plan - 1177.04 Illustrative site Layout Plan - 1177.03C Potential Site Access Arrangements - ITB9213-GA-001 Rev D Swept Path Analysis - Refuse Vehicle - ITB9213-GA-001 Planning Statement Design and Access Statement Heritage Statement Flood Risk Assessment Transport Assessment (V1 and V2) Ecological Surveys Ecological Assessment Arboricultural Survey Geo-Environmental Study (Parts 1 - 6) Statement of Community Involvement Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Affordable Housing statement S106 Heads of Terms

The additional information was provided for the Lead Local Flood Authority and this resulted in an amended Flood Risk Assessment being received in October 2015. The supporting documents provide enough information on the access and on the implications of the principle of development. As such it is considered that the requirements for information to be submitted for this outline application have been met.

Principle of development

In determining planning applications, a Local Planning Authority (LPA) must have regard to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The site lies outside, but immediately adjoining the Settlement Policy Boundary of Bramley (as defined under Saved Policy D5 of the BDBLP) where the development plan allows for the principle of new housing. The site is therefore within the countryside for the purposes of the Development Plan.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The NPPF is a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. The weight given to relevant policies in the development plan is dependent upon their conformity with the policies in the NPPF (NPPF Annex 1).

NPPF Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes (paragraphs 47 - 55) is the most relevant in relation to considering the principle of development and requires that LPAs have a five year housing land supply. It states 'Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local

17 of 119 planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.'

As set out below the council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply. On this basis the policies within the current Local Plan relating to the direction of housing development are therefore not considered up-to-date, which includes Saved Policy D5 and the Settlement Policy Boundaries. The implications for this are set out below. Permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development as set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

- Housing Land Supply Position

On 27 March 2015, Full Council agreed that 850dpa should be used as the annual housing requirement for the emerging Local Plan and for use in determining the borough’s 5 year land supply position. This is a revised position resulting from proposed main modifications to the submission Local Plan which have occurred as a result of the Inspector’s initial soundness concerns on the previously proposed housing figure of 748 dpa. This position has been tested further during the Local Plan examination hearings, which finished on 11 November 2015. This housing requirement is reflected in a revised Submission Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing), which has been agreed by council.

Based on the 850 dpa requirement the council can only demonstrate 3.4 years of supply (using the nationally recognised Sedgefield Method).

The NPPF states (Para 49) that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. As this is the case here, the presumption in favour of sustainable development comes into play. In terms of decision making, this means that, in line with paragraph 14 of the NPPF permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, or where specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted. This view has been reiterated by the Secretary of State in all recent major residential appeal decisions relating to Kiln Farm (450 dwellings), Kennel Farm (310 dwellings), Razors Farm decision (425 dwellings). Overton Hill (120 Dwellings) and Worting Farm (70 dwellings).

As a result of the continuing lack of a five year land supply there is a strong possibility that the borough will continue to receive applications for housing developments, including on greenfield sites outside the borough's built up areas in locations that may not be the council's, or the local community's preferred locations for development.

There is also the continuing risk of planning appeals being brought forward on land supply grounds if planning applications are refused, as has occurred to date with such sites as Kiln Farm (North of Marnel Park), Kennel Farm , Razors Farm, Worting Farm , Overton Hill and Caesars Way, all of which were allowed on appeal.

All the recent appeal decisions recognise the lack of a 5 year land supply. In allowing the Kiln Farm appeal the Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector "that the two appeals are made against a background of a "serious and significant" shortfall in housing and land supply in Basingstoke. This view was again made in the more recent Razors Farm decision. The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that due to the lack of land supply the relevant Local Plan policies for the supply of housing cannot be considered up to date and that the presumption at paragraph 14 of the Framework applied.

18 of 119

In the Razors Farm appeal decision the Inspector acknowledges that there is a balancing exercise to be taken as required in the NPPF but it is clear in the conclusions reached the weight to be given to the benefits of housing supply.

The Inspector acknowledged that there would be an adverse impact in landscape terms and on the setting of the listed buildings at Razors Farm, and that the latter factor is one that attracts considerable importance and weight in the balancing exercise. However, the Inspector stated that "it is important to acknowledge that considerable importance and weight is not synonymous with overriding importance and weight".

The Inspector in the Razors Farm decision concluded that that "the provision of new open- market and affordable homes and associated economic activity are weighty matters in economic and social terms. Notwithstanding that considerable importance and weight must be attached to the harmful impact on the setting of the listed buildings affects, in my judgement, the adverse impacts of the proposal, considered in their totality, do not come close to significantly and demonstrably outweighing the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework considered as a whole". This balancing approach has been undertaken by Inspectors and the Secretary of State in all of the aforementioned appeal decisions.

There is therefore no doubt that the Council's land supply position is a major and significant factor in the determination of this application. In light of all the recent major residential planning application appeal decisions, it is considered that the application cannot be refused on the basis of adequate land supply and that a refusal on these grounds would open the council up to a costs application on this ground alone.

- Prematurity

A further issue that needs to be addressed is that of prematurity. The Planning Practice Guidance states that in the context of the NPPF and in particular the presumption in favour of sustainable development, arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the NPPF and any other material considerations into account.

The guidance goes on to state that such circumstances are likely, but not exclusively, to be limited to situations where the development proposal is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging Local Plan or Neighbourhood Planning and the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not formally part of the development plan for the area.

The guidance also states that refusal of planning permission on the grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified where a draft Local Plan has yet to be submitted for examination, or in the case of a Neighbourhood Plan, before the end of the local planning authority publicity period. If planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity the LPA will need to indicate clearly how the grant of planning permission concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process.

The proposed development would contribute to the delivery of developable housing land, where there is currently a shortfall. It is not considered that the proposed development is

19 of 119 so significant that it would prejudice the scale and location of development in the emerging Local Plan, amounting to approximately 1% of the 5 year housing land requirement as at 1st April 2015, and less than 0.5% of the overall 15 year requirement. Approving this application would not be premature in that regard.

The Minchens Lane development for 200 houses also in Bramley represented 4.3% of the 5 year housing land supply and less than 2% of the overall 15 year requirement, based on the housing figure at that time which has since changed.

It is also material to note that when considering the appeal for Kiln Farm, the Secretary of State concluded that due to issues relating to land supply, the argument of prematurity was not justified. The Inspectors report on the Kiln Farm appeal stated that: "Waiting for the Local Plan to be adopted and then making up the housing provision later in the plan period would be the antithesis of the approach advocated in the Framework."

- Neighbourhood Planning

The council actively supports the principle of Neighbourhood Planning and this is a central strand of the borough's approach to future development. This is reflected in the borough's Submitted Local Plan which sets the strategic framework for neighbourhood planning. The Submitted Local Plan, contains a draft Policy SS5: Neighbourhood Planning. This requires sites to be identified to accommodate approximately 200 homes over the plan period generally in and around the defined Settlement Policy Boundary of Bramley.

Through consultation on the previous versions of the draft Plan, namely the Pre- submission Local Plan and the Revised Pre Submission Local Plan, a number of objections were received to draft policy SS5 both in principle and also, more specifically, to the level of development proposed for Bramley. In light of these outstanding objections and the current stage of the Local Plan, this draft policy can be given only very limited weight through the development management process.

Bramley Parish was designated a neighbourhood planning area in 2013 and the local community have been actively moving forward with preparing the plan, including meeting with relevant landowners and developers and assessing the suitability of potential future housing sites. The Bramley Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) has been published in draft form and the PC has confirmed that following public consultation there will be significant amendments to the draft (para k in their response above).

The NPPG advises that refusal on the grounds of prematurity in the case of a Neighbourhood Plan will seldom be justified before the end of the LPA publicity period.

A large amount of the objection to the scheme has been the cumulative impact of the development when taken into consideration other recent construction and permissions. The Local Plan team have stated that; 'The village has recently experienced a high level of development which has increased in size by approximately 20% between 2001-2011.

The submission Local Plan at policy SS5 (neighbourhood planning) states that approximately 200 new homes is a suitable level of development for the village to accommodate up to 2029, given such issues as housing need and infrastructure constraints. Three options for the level of development for Bramley were considered in the Sustainability Appraisal (inc. Strategic Environmental Assessment) Report for Bramley:

20 of 119

1. No housing allocation 2. Allocation for 200 dwellings 3. Allocation for 300 dwellings

Given the size of the village, local housing need, the availability of local services and facilities, but also taking into account the relatively high levels of development experienced in the village in recent years, option 2 was considered to be the preferred approach. The council did not consider an option which contained a specified site plus an additional quantum of development to be delivered through such mechanisms as neighbourhood plans. This approach also took into account the recognition of the high level of recent development in the village.

An application for 200 dwellings at Minchens Lane, Bramley was granted planning permission in 2014 (14/01075/OUT). As explained in paragraph 4.52 of the emerging Local plan, developments of more than 5 dwellings outside settlement policy boundaries (since 2011) could qualify towards the dwelling requirements defined for villages/ towns defined in policy SS5.

In addition to the requirement of emerging policy SS5 of the Local Plan, the Local Plan also includes two strategic housing allocations that are within Bramley parish:

Policy SS3.3: Razors Farm (420 dwellings) - this site has outline permission for 425 dwellings) Policy SS3.8: Upper Cufaude Farm (390 dwellings)'

The objections consider that the 200 houses proposed for Bramley in the emerging Local Plan have already been met and as a result of this and other recent built and approved schemes that Bramley has taken it fair share of houses to help with the lack of a 5 year housing land supply which is a BDBC wide problem, not a local Bramley problem, but that they are getting the most impact.

This objection is understandable, however the council does not have a 5 year housing land supply, the emerging local plan has just been through the EIP and cannot be given weight including the policies, allocations and planned numbers for neighbourhood plan areas.

The Inspector may or may not agree with the emerging local plan and the policies mentioned above. It is material that there was objection to these policies at the EIP.

With the recent approval for the Minchens Lane development the officer report to committee made clear the potential continuing position even if that application was approved:

'If approved, the application would determine the location of 200 houses within Bramley. This could therefore mean that the Bramley Neighbourhood Plan does not need to allocate any housing sites. However, members must note that approving the current planning application in itself would not prevent further development being proposed in Bramley in the plan period of the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan. If further applications were received ahead of the adoption of the emerging Local Plan and any Neighbourhood Plan for Bramley, then they would have to be considered based on the merits of the application against the planning policy context applicable at that time including issues such as housing land supply and relevant issues that arise as a result of the examination of the Local Plan, that would be material to the determination of any future applications.'

21 of 119

The Neighbourhood Plan is not at an advanced stage and the numbers of dwellings proposed for Bramley in the Emerging Local Plan are not adopted policy and could be subject to further revisions dependent on the outcome of the Local Plan Inspector’s report.

- Current Site Status and Impacts of the Development of the Site

The site is part of a wider area of land listed as a Category 1 site in version 10 of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2015, (reference BRAM010). The SHLAA states that 'the site is available and may, in principle, be suitable and achievable, not being constrained by policy designations. Subject to further development being considered suitable at Bramley, this site should be assessed further as a possible development site through the Local Plan'.

The site was assessed further as part of the evidence base for the emerging Local Plan and, as such, has been subject to a more detailed Site Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal process. The outcomes of these processes were reported to the Planning and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee (P&I OSCOM) in a series of meetings which took place through January 2013.The Site Assessment (which is available to view on the Council website at the following link http://www.basingstoke.gov.uk/HO5) concluded that whilst the site had a number of constraints, the most significant of these related to flood risk and impact on the area's heritage assets.

The site was not allocated for development in the emerging Local Plan, in light of the approach taken to development within the borough's settlements. However the site is being promoted as an omissions site by the applicant as they consider it should be allocated as a housing site in the emerging local plan. As set out under the planning policy section of this report the Emerging Local Plan and the inclusion or exclusion of sites can be given little weight at the current stage.

- Conclusion on the Principle of Development In conclusion therefore, the principle of development is considered acceptable. There is no 5 year housing land supply and no justification for refusal on prematurity grounds ahead of the Emerging Local Plan being adopted, can be justified, as although the EIP has taken place the Council are awaiting the response from the Inspector and cannot assume that he will be in full agreement with the LPA on the emerging policies. There may be a requirement for change and the application has to be considered on the basis of the context for decision making at the time the application is determined. The Neighbourhood Plan is also not at an advanced stage. A refusal therefore cannot be justified on this basis.

Sustainable Development The NPPF states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and Local Planning Authorities are encouraged to approach decision-taking in a positive way, to foster the delivery of sustainable development.

The three dimensions to achieving sustainable development are defined in the NPPF as: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions are also referenced within the adopted Local Plan at Saved Policy D5, where it is recognised that "Residential … proposals which contribute to social, economic and environmental well-being will be permitted". Whilst this is set out in relation to existing Settlement Policy Boundaries, rather than Greenfield sites, it is clear that these three dimensions are relevant in determining this application. 22 of 119

Under the Core Planning Principles of the NPPF, it is stated that planning should proactively drive and support sustainable development to deliver the homes and thriving places that the country needs. Every effort should be made to objectively identify and then meet the housing and development needs of an area and respond positively to the wider opportunities for growth. The core principles also focus on delivering high quality design, recognising the different roles and characters of different areas, conserving the natural environment and heritage assets, and actively managing patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and focusing significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.

- Economic

This is not an application for economic development; however the implementation of the scheme would have a positive impact on economic sustainability. The construction phase would create a number of jobs and once occupied the residents would be potential employees for businesses in the area, or those wishing to relocate and these residents would be consumers in the local economy. It is acknowledged that in this regard the opportunities for employment within the immediately adjoining area are limited.

This was similar to the approach considered in determining the Razors Farm decision, where the Inspector stated that "the proposal will generate construction jobs and economic activity. In the longer term, as the site is occupied, residents will add to local spending levels and the proposal will generate considerable funds in terms of the New Homes Bonus. Bearing in mind the approach of the Framework, these benefits carry significant weight".

- Social

Given the lack of a 5 year housing land supply as discussed above it is clear that if this site were developed in the short term, it would positively contribute towards the five year land supply position, whilst work continues on the emerging Local Plan. This is an element of social sustainability as it is providing housing for residents.

An appropriate level of affordable housing should be provided as part of the development, with the starting point for negotiations being 40%, as identified in Saved Policy C2 of the Local Plan, and the Affordable Housing SPD. The application proposes 40% affordable housing to be provided on site.

Based on 40% affordable housing and a development size of 50 dwellings, 20 dwellings would be affordable. As this is an outline application with all matters but access for consideration the provision would be secured through a S106 and would be based on the need at the time of any reserved matters application. The details provided with any reserved matters application. would have to comply with the legal agreement.

The Parish Council have indicated in their comments objecting to the application that the need for affordable housing in Bramley has been met when using the measure of the emerging local plan. This is because the recently approved developments within the parish have all secured 40% affordable housing (para 3 in their statement above). They consider that Bramley is already contributing 625 dwellings with a further 385 dwellings in prospect and a total of 404 affordable homes (against a need of 72) and therefore the resources of the parish will be over stretched by an influx of residents from other parts of BDBC.

23 of 119

The Council's affordable housing policy states that where there is a need for affordable housing the starting point for negotiations is 40% of the overall number of dwellings proposed should be as affordable units. In this instance Housing Services have confirmed that there is an identified need for 40% affordable units to be provided at the site. The developer has also indicated that the level of affordable housing would be at 40%.

In the recent appeal decision for the Razors Farm development the Inspector recognised the benefits the development brought with regards to the provision of 40% affordable homes where there is a rising and substantial need for affordable housing in the Council Area. The Inspector stated that with up to 40% affordable homes this was a "matter of significant weight in favour of the proposal", a view agreed with by the Secretary of State.

As such, the scheme is considered to be compliant with Saved Policy C2 of the Local Plan and the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document of July 2007. The provision of affordable housing to meet local need is considered to represent social sustainability as required by the NPPF.

Saved Policy C3 of the Local Plan requires a mix of dwellings both within the development overall and with the market housing, including a substantial (30-50%) proportion of small units (1 and 2 bedrooms) as well as encouraging developers to provide a proportion of homes designed to Lifetime Mobility Standards.

Saved Policy C3 and the Housing Mix SPD seek to provide the right types of houses in the right location. Affordable housing mix is determined by the housing needs information and not the housing mix policy or SPD. The implementation of the housing mix SPD is locational. The proposed development is for up to 50 dwellings and the Design and Access Statement states that there will be a mix of' 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings' provided at a medium to low density. The document goes on to state that with regard to the market dwellings the indicative layout shows 37% of the market units as 2 bed house, which is within the policy target. As the layout is indicative a condition can secure compliance with Saved Policy C3.

The layout of the site is not being considered at this stage and ultimately will be determined at the reserved matters stage taking into account a number of factors in addition to the housing mix policy, for example constraints of the site and the detailed design of the dwellings (overlooking, car parking, safety, garden space etc.), hence the range / flexibility included within the housing mix policy.

Saved Policy C3 and the Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards Supplementary Planning Document; require 15% or more of market dwellings being built to lifetime mobility standards, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. As this is an outline planning application where layout and appearance are reserved this can be secured by condition.

In light of the above, the scheme is considered to be compliant or will allow compliance at the reserved matters stage with Saved Policies C3 of the Local Plan and the Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards SPD. The provision of a housing mix and lifetime mobility housing is considered to represent social sustainability as required by the NPPF.

24 of 119

- Environmental The Environmental element of sustainable development includes matters such as the location of the site, the visual impact of the proposed development and the impact on ecology, all of which will be assessed below. With regards to the location of the site the Local Plan gives a definition of sustainable location for new housing as 'a location which ….is easily accessible to employment, education, retail, community and other facilities by a choice of attractive means of transport other than the private car.'

Using this definition and the more recent guidance outlined in the NPPF the Transport Officer has advised that; 'When evaluating the site in accordance with the local plan and the NPPF, the Highway Authority would consider the overall assessment as being Sustainable when measured in terms of sustainable transport modes. It is felt that due to the sites location the site has limited accessibility by a choice of transport means which is why it is considered to be categorised as such.’

Flood Risk and Drainage

The application has been accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The site is located within Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3 and therefore some of the site is at the lowest possible risk of flooding from fluvial sources and some is at the highest. The site is bounded to the north by Bramley Green Stream.

The indicative layout places all the constructed development within Flood Zone 1 and the area of Flood Zone 2 and 3 are proposed to be used for the landscaping and open space provision for the site.

The Environment Agency considers that outline planning permission can be granted for the proposed development if conditions relating to no development in the flood zone, compliance with the FRA and an 8m buffer zone alongside Bramley Green stream are imposed. They have confirmed that without these conditions the indicated scheme proposes an unacceptable risk to the environment and they would object to the scheme as submitted

The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) were consulted on the application and originally objected to the proposal. Additional information was provided and an amended FRA was submitted. With the additional information the LLFA have confirmed;

'The proposals for surface water drainage meet the current standards/best practice in relation to surface water drainage.

Where the proposals are connecting to an existing drainage system it is likely that the authorities responsible for maintaining those systems will have their own design requirements. These requirements will need to be reviewed and agreed as part of any surface water drainage scheme.

Please note that the mechanism for securing long-term maintenance will need to be considered and agreed between the applicant and the Local Planning Authority. This may involve discussions with those adopting and/or maintaining the proposed systems, which could include the Highway Authority, Planning Authority, Parish Councils, Water Companies and private management companies.

This response has been provided using the best knowledge and information submitted as part of the planning application at the time of responding and is reliant 25 of 119

on the accuracy of that information.'

Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this application and have recommended a Grampian condition that does not allow development 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, the reason is to ensure that ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community.

This request was raised in relation to the Minchens Lane development and a Grampian condition was placed on this development and it is considered appropriate to repeat on this application.

The indicative layout shows the amenity space provided for the application within Flood Zones 2 and 3. The NPPG states that these uses are acceptable in a flood zone, in relation to flood risk issues. However, to meet the development plan policy requirement for the provision of such space they have to be usable for their proposed use to mitigate the impact of the development.

Given the extent of flood zones 2 and 3 the amount of open space on this site is generous as it is proposed across these areas and exceeds the policy requirements. There is a possibility though that for some of the year the majority of the flood zone 2 and 3 areas would not be usable as open space as although not necessarily flooded it may be saturated making it unusable.

It is considered that given the amount of open space on the site it may be possible to design the Public Open Space (POS) so that some was made to be usable for longer through the year. This would be achieved through the active management of the drainage of the site and the landscaping of the POS which can be secured by condition. This would allow some areas to be available for longer in the year and would retain some amenity value, such as footpaths through the site and the play area, this would be balanced with some areas of the POS being available for less of the year as they would take the water from the usable parts.

The applicant was approached about this condition and stated that; 'You have mentioned that measures could be taken within the proposed open space to make this 'more useable'. Without prejudice to our view that this is not necessary, this is a detailed matter which would be covered at the Reserved Matters stage - at this outline stage, it is only necessary to consider the principle of whether the use is appropriate in that location (as 'tied down' by the submitted parameter plans). Clearly the principle of open space in Flood Zones 2 and 3 is appropriate with reference to the NPPF (as you have acknowledged).'

The LPA agree that the detail can be secured at the reserved matters stage but the condition is required to be imposed on the outline consent to ensure that there is a mechanism to securing the detail in the reserved matters stage.

This option has been discussed with the Environment Agency including the sharing of a copy of the proposed condition. In response the EA have advised that in addition to the two conditions proposed within their original response they require a third condition; There shall be no land raising on site unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

26 of 119

It is considered that with conditions relating to drainage and improving the usability of parts of the proposed POS then the impact of the development in relation to flood risk can be accepted.

Highway Assessment

The NPPF is clear at paragraph 32 that developments which generate a significant amount of vehicle movements should be supported through a Transport Assessment and planning decisions need to take account of whether:

- the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; - safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and - improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development.

Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe. This application was supported by a Transport Assessment (TA).

The Transport Team consider the site sustainable. In general, walking within the local area would be possible due to the sites location, the entrance emerging onto Sherfield Road, which is a narrow unlit road with a single pedestrian footway to the northern side. The carriageway is restricted to a 30 mph speed limit, with traffic calming measures in place.

Bramley railway station is approximately 600m from the site entrance from where trains offering services to Basingstoke and Reading where onward connections can be made

Bus services offer opportunities for mode transfer with destinations for retail, employment, health and tertiary education; given some flexibility in personal time allowances, recognising that journeys are longer and timetable driven. Nevertheless, due to the location of the site the available bus services are limited, with only the service 14, operated by Stagecoach offering an hourly service between Tadley and Basingstoke on Monday to Saturday only. The distance from the site entrance to the nearest bus stop is approximately 196m, but this distance will increase as you move further into the site.

However, on road cycling to more distant locations such as the railway station, employment sites or retail outlets would also be feasible over other modes.

It is considered that the this evaluation of the site is acceptable, acknowledging that Bramley has some services and facilities and possible links to others, subject to personal time allowances.

In highway terms the site has the benefit of pre-application scoping discussions directly with the Local Highway Authority HCC for a potential development comprising 200 dwellings and its associated Transport Assessment. The Transport Assessment (TA) deposited with the 50 dwelling application follows the broad parameters established at the scoping stage with HCC.

The TA considers the existing situation on the local highway network, including at the level crossing, via automatic traffic counters and or manual classified counts (4.5.4), while trip

27 of 119 generation from the site is considered by comparison with both TRICS and local trip generation from Farriers Close and The Smithy (114 units); the local trip generation figures are used for future assessment purposes up to 2020 along with committed development.

The traffic data also informed (vehicle speed along Sherfield Road) the provision of required visibility sightlines at the proposed site access (2.4m by 90m); the site access has a 5.5m wide carriageway with 2m footway provision, including tactile paving, which is shown with refuse vehicle swept path.

Off-site works within Sherfield Road are also identified, illumination of an existing central traffic island and relocation of the existing traffic calming feature in the vicinity of the site access, both items having been agreed directly with HCC at the scoping stage; a Section 278 Agreement will be required with HCC as Local Highway Authority to deliver the off-site highway works.

The local traffic generation data informs traffic distribution and allocation to the movement network and consequent assessment of junction capacity, including queues at the level crossing, all at the design year 2020.

The study area had been agreed previously with HCC and included: Site Access junction; A33 /Bramley Road / Longbridge Mill Access (roundabout); Bramley Road / Reading Road (crossroads); Sherfield Road / Bramley Lane (priority junction); The Street / Cufaude Lane (priority junction); The Street / Vyne Road / Silchester Road (priority junction); and Bramley level Crossing.

The TA sets out the analysis undertaken in respect of traffic impact; it concludes that with around 33 two-way movements in the morning peak hour and around 31 two-way movements in the evening peak hour with the trips distributed 46% turning right and 54% turning left, the junctions are expected to operate within their theoretical capacity. This includes an assessment of the Bramley level crossing.

Survey data at Bramley Level Crossing indicate morning and evening existing queue lengths and maximum delay, then future impact from the development, which are summarised that the future trip generation and trip distribution 'are not considered to materially change the way that the level crossing currently operates.'

Clarification has also been obtained by email with the applicants Transport Consultant essentially seeking clarification about certain aspects of the TA, including the operation of the Cufaude Lane junction with The Street.

On balance, it is concluded within the TA that the development would not materially and or significantly alter the operation of the local movement network.

While the TA also considers the internal site layout this is indicative only at this stage being a reserved matter of this Outline application where only access is being considered; Conditions will be recommended to ensure any future reserved matters application(s) will meet expectations, i.e. residential parking standards.

The Highway team have confirmed that the Summary and Conclusions of the TA, are supported and they raise no object to the proposal subject to conditions relating to .plan numbers, 278 agreement with HCC, detailed access plans, construction method statement, parking, lifetimes homes, cycle storage and refuse/recycling. With the

28 of 119 provision of these conditions the highway aspects of the application are considered acceptable.

The application demonstrates only one access point, the vehicular /pedestrian access onto Sherfield Road. Additional pedestrian cycle access points are not required to make the application acceptable to the highway or transport officer, as the principle network with access to bus stops and the railway and other services would be via the Sherfield Road access. The urban design and play and open spaces officers think that the application could be improved with a pedestrian / cycle to the west, the highway and transport officer recognise that it is highly desirable, but not essential.

The application documents discuss that it may be desirable to link into the existing footpath that runs adjacent to the western boundary adjacent to the Strawberry Fields development but that this is outside their ownership and not within the red line. Discussions with the council, who are the adjoining land owner are at an early stage, however there is no conclusion of discussion with the applicant and property services at this present time.

This is an outline planning application and therefore layout is reserved for future consideration, in addition there is significant landscaping on the boundary. Therefore any link through would have to demonstrate that it is acceptable in layout terms and consider the impact on the mature trees / hedgerow that are located on this boundary.

An informative is suggested that states that any reserved matters application for the layout shall include a survey of the eastern boundary and either provide a pedestrian / cycle link through to the footpath adjacent to the eastern boundary at some point along its length or provide a written justification as to why this is not possible.

Impact on Landscape Character and Visual Amenity

The site is currently in use for arable farming and slopes gently down to the stream that runs along the northern boundary. Beyond the stream, arable land rises to the north to where hedgerows, individual trees, woodland and occasional farm buildings form a ridgeline. Another arable field lies immediately to the east continuing into open countryside.

The western and southern site boundaries border the settlement of Bramley. To the west an established hedge and public footpath form the boundary with the Strawberry Fields housing development. Further housing lies to the south beyond Sherfield Road which is mostly screened from the site by the combination of dense shelterbelt and mature hedgerows that forms the southern boundary between the site and Sherfield Road.

- Existing Landscape Character

The site lies on the western side of the Loddon and Lyde Valley Character area as defined by the BDBC Landscape Character Assessment. Characteristics relevant to this site are:-

- Relatively large-scale, open arable fields with low, well-trimmed hedgerows and infrequent woodland, reflecting 17th - 18th century informal enclosure - Relatively low intervisibility within the area, due to landform and vegetation minimising views, but more extensive views possible in the more open northern and southern landscapes

29 of 119

- Generally unspoilt, quiet and rural character, and a sense of remoteness in less accessible parts of the river valley, but with intrusion by major roads, the railway and electricity pylons in some areas.

The site itself is at the edge between the built form of the existing settlement (which is largely softened by a well vegetated structure), and the generally unspoilt rural character of the surrounding countryside, with views out to open fields, hedgerows and woodland blocks.

- Existing Visual amenity

The site is visible from viewpoints to the north on Folly Lane and Oliver's Lane, and partial views occur from Sherfield Road to the south-east. Views into the site at ground level from the south and south-west are largely screened by existing vegetation.

- Indicative Landscape proposals

The proposal is for up to 50 new dwellings with one vehicle access from Sherfield Road in the south-east corner of the site at the approximate location of an existing farm gate access. The indicative proposed layout shows the built form mainly confined to the south- western side of the site closest to the settlement edge; most of the northern half of the site that meets the open countryside is shown to be occupied by open space areas, coinciding with the flood zones

A detailed Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been submitted to accompany this application and it is considered that this is comprehensive, addressing all of the key issues that might arise from this site.

The LVIA includes Design Parameters (land use, building heights) to create a ‘Landscape Parameters and Mitigation Plan’. It also contains a section of Design Intent which includes Green Infrastructure, Open Space Design, Play and Recreation Facilities and Tree Planting. The D&A supplements this document and summarizes the Landscape and Design Parameters as;

- The retention of the existing vegetation to the Site boundaries and through the site; - The retention of the existing blue infrastructure (streams and ditches ) across the site and the statutory buffer zones; - The provision of significant structure planting to the Site boundaries to mitigate the visual impacts, whilst also replicating the current edge treatment and relationship between residential zones and the CA and Bramley Green. This planting will include native tree belts and understorey planting to the northern and southern boundaries and a hedge with hedgerow trees to the eastern boundary; - The provision of a significant area of green infrastructure, totalling approximately 2.77 ha (27 780sqm). - Impact on Landscape Character

The Landscape Office was consulted on the application and has raised no objection to the application and considers that the impact on landscape character and visual amenity is in accordance with Saved Policy E6, but does considered that there will be an adverse impact on local landscape character, the main issues of concern being:-

30 of 119

- Change from open countryside and agricultural use to residential development. - Expansion of the settlement and built form into the countryside. - Introduction of urban and domestic elements into a generally unspoilt, rural landscape.

However, it is considered that these impacts could be mitigated to an acceptable degree with sensitively designed proposals that integrate the edges of the development into the surrounding countryside. To achieve this, any reserved matters application would need to show: - Extensive landscape structure planting, particularly to the northern and eastern boundaries - Use of locally native species suitable to the landscape context for hedgerow and buffer planting - Layout and materials sympathetic to the countryside edge location - Effective planting within the site to soften the overall effect of the built form; this should include an increase in street tree planting and plot boundary and frontage hedge planting to that shown on plan - Details of how proposed street tree and other planting locations work in relation to street lighting and drainage layouts to avoid conflict and allow sufficient space for successful planting establishment. - Measures to avoid overspill parking and potentially illegal caravan encampments onto open space areas - Avoidance of suburban treatment, such as close boarded fences to public facing areas; or where this occurs, buffer planting to screen their impact - Impacts on Visual Amenity

Adverse impacts on visual amenity are likely to be greatest along the Sherfield Road boundary and beyond to the east. These impacts could be mitigated and softened with a continuation of thick native buffer planting along the southern boundary as well as retention of the existing established hedgerows. This treatment should complement the existing planting on both sides of Sherfield Road.

The open space layout shown on the outline proposals would also afford opportunities for footpath links through to the existing footpath network running from the rear of properties in Strawberry Fields and alongside the stream towards other public open spaces within Bramley.

The site is agricultural land with hedgerows and intermittent trees along all boundaries. These features form an important component of the site and the applicant is required to make provision to ensure that they are safeguarded and sustainably integrated into the development. The Tree Officer considers the scheme to be acceptable subject to a condition relating to the submission of an arboricultural method statement, to ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard trees of local interest. The tree officer requires that any reserved matters application provide appropriate buffer zones between a proposed development and any existing areas of woodland or linear landscape features. As the layout is indicative and the description of development is up to 50 dwellings this can be secured by condition.

Any reserved matters application would be driven by the D&A statement and the LVIA, which would be secured by condition, and the stated aims of these documents support the aims of the Landscape Officer and the required mitigation. With the provision of conditions and also using the S106 it is considered that on balance the impact on landscape character and visual amenity is acceptable.

31 of 119

Density

The application proposes a development of up to 50 dwellings. Since the revocation of Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing) by the NPPF there is no formal definition of how to calculate density. However Annex B of PPS3 did include a definition of net dwelling density as follows: 'Net dwelling density is calculated by including only those site areas which will be developed for housing and directly associated uses, including access roads within the site, private garden space, car parking area, incidental open space and landscaping and children's play area, where these are provided.'

Given the lack of any new definition it is considered reasonable to apply the definition set out above as a measured way of calculating density on the site. The developer has indicated that the density would be medium to low with density at its most concentrated towards the western parts of the site, reducing towards the northern and eastern edges to provide a transition between the built form and the wider landscape and notwithstanding the sustainable location of the site the density would average 25-30dph.

The D&A and the LVIA both state that the majority of dwellings would be two storeys, with some two and a half storey designs being used in key locations. While the impact of the proposals is dealt with in greater detail later in the report, the broad proposals that the development will be mainly two storeys would be in keeping with the character and density in nearby parts of Bramley, a view endorsed by the Urban Design officer.

The site is open to view from the road and the Strawberry Fields development and its mature landscaped boundary make a sharp edge of settlement to Bramley at this point. The area identified for housing would avoid the northern section of the site (flood zone 2 and 3) and the indicative layout represents a more fluid boundary with the countryside. There are also no landscape objections to the proposals, and this aspect is dealt with in more detail earlier in the report.

Density is only one indication of development quality and given the restriction in height, which could be secured via condition if approved, this density and height restriction would secure an efficient use of land that represents environmental sustainability by achieving the best use of land.

Character of the Development

This is an outline planning application with all matters except access reserved. However the application is supported by a D&A Statement and a LVIA, both of which provide design details that any reserved matters application can comply with. The supporting information states that the dwellings would be mainly two storeys with two and a half storeys being used only at key locations. It is considered that this limitation on height would be more in keeping with the character of the surrounding area.

The landscaping is a key feature on the boundaries of the site and provide for retention of and new planting on the edges and within the site. The D&A gives details on scale and massing, character, appearance and materials and landscape. The details complement the existing character of this part of Bramley which is mixed in terms of some older individually designed houses and more modern cul de sac developments from the late 20th century. Conditions would ensure that the development would be in accordance with the D&A statement which is considered an acceptable way to develop the site.

32 of 119

Impact on heritage assets

The application was accompanied by a Heritage Statement. There are no designated or non-designated heritage assets within the site and the Bramley Green Conservation area is c.65m away from the southwest corner of the site. The Bramley Green Conservation Area is located mostly to the south of Sherfield Road but the land to the north of it does create the setting and back drop to the CA. The site at the closest point is 65m away from the CA and the development includes significant planting on the eastern boundary and the southern road frontage, which would supplement the existing road side planting. The Conservation Team were consulted on the application and they agree with the comments made at pre application stage that the 200 house scheme was unacceptable in conservation terms. However this is a smaller site and the description of development is up to 50 dwellings. The site area is not as large and is not as close to the CA. The bend in the road also reduces visual impact / relationship. Landscaping (existing and proposed) further softens the impact. It is an outline application so no detail is provided but the information submitted indicates domestic scale dwellings consistent with the modern developments adjacent to the application site. Therefore in conclusion the impact upon the setting of the CA is considered low and would not cause any adverse harm to its character and appearance.

The conclusions of the Conservation officer are agreed with and given the level of separation between the development site and the CA the impact on the heritage assets is considered to comply with Saved Policy E3.

Archaeology

The application is accompanied by a Heritage Statement. The County Archaeologist states that he would endorse many aspects of this Heritage Statement, although would question some marginal elements.

Notwithstanding this the County Archaeologist agrees with the report that the archaeology does not represent an overriding issue, and that any mitigation arising could be secured by an archaeological condition attached to any planning permission which might be issued. The condition would need to secure a programme of archaeological work to be submitted by the applicant and agreed by the planning authority. The provision of such a condition is considered appropriate.

Biodiversity Implications

The application has been support by a comprehensive ecological report supported by a suite of surveys, which all appear to have been conducted within good practice guidance and the findings appear to be valid. The site appears to support a reasonable population of foraging bats of a number of species, however it appears as if the proposal has limited potential for harm to other protected species particularly with the implementation of reasonable avoidance measures.

The northern part of the site within the floodplain provides opportunities for biodiversity enhancements and the Biodiversity Officer notes the requirements of the landscape and biodiversity SPD to provide appropriate buffers between development and natural habitats.

The Biodiversity Officer raises no objection to the proposals and recommends that conditions are imposed to secure details of a habitat enhancement scheme, and the submission of a Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan. These conditions are considered

33 of 119 appropriate and would ensure that species are protected before and throughout the construction phase and that a net gain for biodiversity is delivered in accordance with Saved Policy E7.

Green Space Standards

The amount of green space required with any development is determined by the adopted Interim Green Space Standards (July 2013) and the Community Infrastructure Interim Planning Guidance. The amount of green space required is a formula that is based on the housing mix, average occupancy and number of dwellings. These adopted standards require a higher level of green space provision than the previous standards but a lower level of equipped play provision.

The detailed layout of the site is not being considered at this stage and ultimately will be determined at the detailed design stage taking into account a number of factors such as the housing mix policy, constraints of the site (levels, drainage etc) and the detailed design of the dwellings (overlooking, car parking, safety, garden space etc). The Council's Interim Planning Guidance "Section 106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure", states that where the housing mix is not known an average occupancy rate of 2.4 persons per dwelling will be used. There is sufficient space on site to accommodate the necessary provision.

Multi-functional Green Space and Equipped Play

The Parks and Open Space Officer has confirmed that there is no surplus of Multi- Functional Green Open Space (MFGS) in Bramley and therefore new open space must be provided to meet the needs of the additional residents.

The proposal indicates more than the minimum requirement of 3840m² and indicates the provision of kickabout space within the MFGS. It will be necessary to approve the detailed design of the MFGS to ensure that it meets the Council's requirements for kickabout, parks and accessible natural green space.

The proposal indicates an equipped play area, which is larger than the minimum 60m² within the MFGS. The Council's minimum size for a Local Equipped Play Area is 450m² the proposed play area should meet this minimum size

The requirement and its detailed design needs to comply with the Council's Play Area Specification. The detailed design of the Multi-functional Green Space and equipped play area will need to be agreed prior to commencement of the development and/or any phase which is considered to relate to the MFGS and/or play area and this can be secured by the S106.

The Parks and Open Space Officer has confirmed stated that further information is required with regard to the impact of the flood zone on the use and maintenance of the MFGS and the equipped play area to ensure that the proposal is deliverable and will meet the needs of the new residents.

The site is able to provide a significant amount of POS and the S106 can secure the provision and management of it. The report has discussed above the issues relating to the usability of the POS and the footpath links.

34 of 119

Other Section 106 Contributions

As mentioned above the section 106 agreement would secure:

- 40% of the units to be affordable - Landscape Management Plan - Secure on site open space - Secure on site play area/recreation

Off-site financial contributions towards;

- Contribution towards Community Facilities - Contribution towards Education - Contribution towards Playing Fields

With regards to the education contributions HCC as Education Authority has confirmed that there is only a justification for a contribution towards primary school places, they have stated that;

'The primary school in Bramley has recently been expanded due to new housing development being approved. The pressure for pupil numbers is rising with the projections of 4 year olds living in the school's catchment area exceeding the available places in each year group of 75.

Bramley primary School will need to be expanded to meet the forecast demand for primary school places in the area arising from the additional housing that already has approval and from any further sites, like this, that come forward. A scheme has been drawn which shows the school being expanded from 75 to 90 places per year group at an estimated cost of £2.1m

The obligation being sought represents a proportion of the overall forecast demand for school places so will be pooled towards the larger expansion scheme.'

The Council's Interim Planning Guidance Note 'S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure', and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 with regard to planning obligations in the context of a development. The CIL regulations in particular, now make it unlawful if the obligation sought does not meet the following three tests:

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms (b) directly related to the development, and; (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

It is considered that the proposed heads of term with regard to this application meet these tests. At this time there is no legal agreement place but the applicant has agreed the heads of terms and that is why the recommendation is subject to the completion of the S106.

Contamination

Due to the fact that the proposed use is sensitive to the presence of contamination the Environmental Health Officer recommends that a contaminated land condition and verification condition are imposed.

35 of 119

Other matters

- Departure

The site lies outside the Settlement Policy Boundary of Bramley (as defined under Saved Policy D5 of the BDBLP). The site is therefore within the countryside for the purposes of the Development Plan and the proposed development would constitute a departure from the Plan. The application has been advertised as a major development but was not identified as a departure and so a second advert has been placed, which explains the wording of the recommendation.

- Agricultural land

The majority of agricultural land surrounding Bramley is Best and Most Versatile (BMV). The applicant was asked to confirm the status of the land as no information was provided at the initial stage. They have provided a map that indicates the site is all Grade 3 (Good to Moderate) with most of the site being Grade 3b with two areas of Grade 3a; one area along the eastern boundary and a second in the south west corner of the site.

Paragraph 112 of the NPPF notes that local planning authorities "should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality."

Although the majority of the site comprises Grade 3 agricultural land this is typical of land between Basingstoke and Reading. The loss of the site from agricultural use would not therefore have a significant effect on the supply of the 'best and most versatile agricultural land' in the area. The site is a small area of land and it is not considered that the loss of the site for housing and open space uses would not have significant agricultural effects.

- Statement of Community Involvement

A Statement of Community Involvement has been submitted setting out the approach taken by the applicants to engage with stakeholders and members of the public prior to submission of this application.

The consultation process included: - Meetings/discussions with Bramley Parish Council (beginning summer 2014) - Leaflet Drop - hand distributed to all houses in the village in June 2014 with 279 responses. - Public Exhibition (Saturday 11 October 2014 10am - 2pm). No new master plan but informed public that they were considering the potential for a reduced scale of development. 73 members of the public attended the meeting.

It is considered that the applicants have undertaken an appropriate level of consultation and public engagement, raising awareness of the scheme, providing an opportunity for comment on the proposals and responding to the key issues raised. The approach taken is considered to be consistent with policy guidance. It is noted that the consultation was for a larger scheme, of which this site would be part of, but the consultation has sought the communities opinion in relation to the development of this site and made the local community aware of the applicants intention to seek development on this site.

36 of 119

- Response to Other Matters Raised in Representations

Comment has been made that the applicant is pursuing this land as part of a larger site as a housing allocation site as part of the emerging Local Plan. There is nothing to prevent the applicant submitting this smaller site for housing development, while at the same time pursuing their desire to have a larger site allocated within the emerging Local Plan.

The LPA have to consider the application as submitted in relation to the policy framework that we have in place at the moment, which is what the report above has done. If this application is approved and at some point the larger site is allocated for housing then the approval on this site would be a material consideration with any future planning application on the larger site.

Issues relating to overlooking will be considered at the reserved matters stage.

Conclusion

The Balancing Exercise

The proposed development would provide up to 50 dwellings with 40% of these being affordable, equating to 20 dwellings. As has been mentioned above under the 'Principles of Development' section, the Council is faced with a significant and serious shortfall of housing when tested against the Council's proposed housing target. As a result the Council are also experiencing a rising and substantial need for affordable housing in the Council area. Therefore the provision of 50 dwellings with up to 40% of those affordable homes is a matter that attracts significant weight in favour of the proposal.

The development would have an impact on the landscape character and visual appearance of the site but there is no landscape objection subject to conditions to protect the existing and provide additional planting.

It is considered that the proposed development would have no adverse harm on the setting of the Bramley Green Conservation Area.

It is also considered that the development would also lead to increased traffic upon the existing highway network but that with conditions the impacts of this is not considered to be a significant and unacceptable impact on the local transport network. Any impact identified would therefore fall significantly below a "severe" impact which would be required to be able to refuse the application on these grounds as identified in paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

The proposed development would also have an impact upon the local infrastructure, such as the doctor's surgery, schools and local community facilities. However, this application would secure a contribution towards the identified project to expand Bramley Primary school (secured through the S106 agreement) on site provision and other contributions towards local facilities. These measures will therefore ensure that the impact of the development would be mitigated against in so far as is possible through the existing framework.

The proposal is developing a green field site which is partially in flood zones 2 and 3, although there are no houses or related infrastructure within them. The impact of the development was evaluated within the FRA and this has found to be acceptable to the LLFA. The use of flood zone 2 and 3 as open space is acceptable in the NPPG and with

37 of 119 conditions to ensure parts of the proposed POS is designed so that parts of it are usable for a longer part of the year then this part of the scheme is acceptable.

The provision of new open market and affordable housing and associated economic activity are very weighty matters in economic and social terms. Therefore, notwithstanding identified impacts of the development it is considered that neither individual nor cumulative impacts of the development do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the NPPF considered as a whole. On that basis, the proposed development benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the outline planning permission is recommended for approval.

Conditions

1 Approval of the details of the layout, scale, appearance of the proposed building(s), and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. REASON: In order to secure a satisfactory development and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

2 Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this planning permission. REASON: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

3 The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is later. REASON: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

4 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:

Site Location Plan – 1177.01 Land Use Parameters Plan – 1177.04 (excluding the indicative layout shown within this plan) Potential site access arrangements – ITB9213 GA-001 Rev D

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

5 Applications for the approval of reserved matters shall be broadly in accordance with the principles and parameters described and illustrated in the Design and Access Statement dated July 2015 received on 3rd August 2015 and the Landscape and Visual Appraisal dated July 2015 – Revision B received 3 August 2015. REASON: To ensure an appropriate co-ordinated high quality form of development and to accord with the requirements of the NPPF and Saved Policies E1 and E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 – 2011.

38 of 119

6 No works shall take place until a measured survey has been undertaken and a plan prepared to a scale of not less than 1:500 showing details of existing and intended final ground levels and finished floor levels in relation to a nearby datum point which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Detail is required prior to commencement as insufficient information was provided with the application and to protect the landscape character and visual amenity of the area as there is a slope on the site and to ensure any flood implications are considered in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

7 Prior to the commencement of development of this permission, no development shall commence until a materials schedule (including samples) detailing the types and colours of external materials to be used, including colour of mortar and windows, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for that phase. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Information is required prior to commencement as insufficient information was provided with the application and in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

8 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape proposals have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include, as appropriate, appropriate buffer zones between the proposed development and any existing areas of woodland or linear landscape features, finished levels or contours, means of enclosure, car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas, location and design of play areas, hard surfacing materials and minor artefacts and structure (eg furniture, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, external services, etc). Soft landscape details shall include planting plan, specification (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment), schedules of plants, (including replacement trees where appropriate), noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate, as well as any works to enhance wildlife habitats where appropriate. In addition, an implementation timetable for each phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences within that Phase. If applicable, these details will also extend to cover areas of open space to be adopted by the Council, such areas shall be agreed in writing prior to development commencing. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in accordance with the timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of species, size and number as originally approved, to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Information is required prior to development as insufficient information was provided with the application and to ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs and in accordance with Saved Policies E1(ii) and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

39 of 119

9 No development shall take place on site until a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small, privately-owned, domestic gardens, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape management plan shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Information is required prior to commencement as insufficient information was provided and to ensure that due regard is paid to the continuing enhancement and maintenance of amenity afforded by landscape features of communal public, nature conservation or historical significance the area in accordance with Saved Policies E1(ii) and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

10 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no gates, wall fence or other means of enclosure (other than those approved at the reserved matters stage) shall be erected without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose. REASON: To prevent the development turning its back to the proposed open spaces within the site and in the interests of the amenity of the area and to safeguard the amenities of the future properties, in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

11 No development, including site clearance, demolition, ground preparation, temporary access construction/widening, material storage or construction works shall commence on site until an arboricultural implications assessment, which shall inform an arboricultural method statement, all in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction-Recommendations, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

12 The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy prepared by Rogers Cory Partnership (reference KMR/GLE/E4200/15698 REV2 to LLFA, dated 28 October 2015) and the following mitigation measure detailed within the FRA:

There shall be no built development within Flood Zones 2 or 3.

REASON: To ensure that the proposed development is located in the area at lowest flood risk and to ensure safe access and egress from and to the site. This is sought in accordance with paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

13 Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on the agreed Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy prepared by Rogers Cory Partnership reference: KMR/GLE/E4200/15698 REV2 to LLFA, dated

40 of 119

28 October 2015 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall include:

- A master surface water drainage scheme with each phase of development detailed within so that should the development be carried out in phases and one phase is not carried out there will be no detrimental impact on the scheme. - Details of the Public Open Space (Including paths, play area, kick about space) that demonstrate how the drainage strategy for the site will enable these parts of the public open space to be usable, even if the site is saturated. The details shall include levels and the amount of Public Open Space to be protected. - Management and maintenance details

REASON: Information is required prior to the commencement of development as insufficient information was provided and to prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of these in accordance with paragraphs 103 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

14 There shall be no land raising on site unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not increase flood risk onsite or elsewhere by impede flood water flows or storage. This is sought in accordance with paragraph 103 of the NPPF.

15 No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision and management of an 8m wide buffer zone alongside the Bramley Green Stream shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and any subsequent amendments shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The buffer zone scheme shall be free from built development including lighting, domestic gardens and formal landscaping; and could form a vital part of green infrastructure provision.

The scheme shall include:

- plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone - details of any proposed planting scheme (for example, native species) - details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during development and maintained over the longer term including adequate financial provision and named body responsible for management plus production of detailed management plan - details of any proposed footpaths, fencing, lighting etc.

REASON: Development that encroaches on the Bramley Green Stream has the potential to impact on this ecological value and the provision and management of an 8m wide buffer zone alongside it would provide an opportunity to enhance the river biodiversity, in line with paragraphs 109 and 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

41 of 119

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 109 states that the planning system should aim to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures. Paragraph 118 of the NPPF also states that opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around development should be encouraged.

Furthermore, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act requires Local Authorities to have regard to nature conservation and article 10 of the Habitats Directive stresses the importance of natural networks of linked corridors to allow movement of species between suitable habitats, and promote the expansion of biodiversity. Information is required prior to development as insufficient information was provided.

16 Prior to the commencement of development details of a habitat enhancement scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The details shall include:

Purpose, aims and objectives for the scheme, taking into account the site's existing biodiversity; The application of appropriate buffers in line with landscape and biodiversity SPD A method statement for implementation of the enhancement proposals; Sources of habitat materials (e.g. planting stock and its origin) if applicable; Aftercare and long term management;

REASON: Information is required prior to development as insufficient information was provided and to help maintain the biodiversity of the area in the long-term, in accordance with Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 – 2011.

17 No development, including any demolition works, soil moving, temporary access construction/widening, or storage of materials, shall commence until a Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include details of the following:

- Details of the timing/ecological watching brief/felling procedures required to address the protection of reptiles, dormice, bats and breeding birds before and during development works. - A sensitive lighting scheme to maintain dark corridors

No development or other operations shall take place other than in complete accordance with the approved Wildlife Protection and Mitigation plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: The habitats present on site have the potential to support species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. They are therefore a material consideration under Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane

42 of 119

Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011. This condition is necessary to ensure reasonable effort is taken to avoid harm to such animals and insufficient information was provided at the time of the application.

18 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a detailed scheme for the improvement of the existing sewerage system has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. No occupation of dwellings approved by this permission shall occur until the scheme for improvement of the existing sewage system has been completed. REASON: Information is required prior to development as insufficient information was provided and to ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development and there is no detrimental impact on water quality arising from changes in quality/quantity of treated sewage discharges. In accordance with paragraph 109 of the NPPF. The sewerage service provider has highlighted existing sewer capacity issues within the vicinity of the proposed development. Improvements to the localities sewerage infrastructure may be required in order to accommodate the development without exacerbating capacity issues within the area.

19 Prior to the commencement of development an archaeological investigation shall be carried out in accordance with a specification submitted to and approved by in writing the Local Planning Authority, the results of which will inform a Written Scheme of Investigation and Mitigation Statement also to be submitted to and approved by in writing the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and mitigation works shall be carried out in accordance with the details so approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Information is required prior to commencement as insufficient information was provided and to allow for the recording of items of archaeological interest in accordance with the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E2 and Saved Policy E4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

20 No development shall be commenced until detailed drawings showing modifications to the existing highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, pursuant to an Agreement to be made under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 between the Developer and the Local Highway Authority, and the alterations to the highway shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is brought into use. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and insufficient information was provided at the application stage

21 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement that demonstrates safe and coordinated systems of work affecting or likely to affect the public highway and or all motorised and or non- motorised highway users, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

43 of 119

The Statement shall include for:

i. compliance with The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 and in particular Part 3 Regulation 8 General duties, whereby construction must be undertaken ‘in a manner that secures the health and safety of any person affected by the project.’ ii. means of access (temporary or permanent) to the site from the adjoining maintainable public highway, including the associated traffic management arrangements; iii. the parking and turning of vehicles of site operatives and visitors off carriageway (all to be established within one week of the commencement of development); iv. loading and unloading of plant and materials away from the maintainable public highway; v. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development away from the maintainable public highway; vi. wheel washing facilities or an explanation why they are not necessary; vii. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; viii. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; ix. a scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and x. the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway, particularly during the Monday to Friday AM peak (08.00 to 09.00) and PM peak (16.30 to 18.00) periods. xi. the routes to be used by construction traffic to access and egress the site so as to avoid undue interference with the safety and operation of the public highway and adjacent roads, including construction traffic holding areas both on and off the site as necessary. REASON: To ensure that the construction process is undertaken in a safe and convenient manner that limits impact on local roads and the amenities of nearby occupiers, the area generally and in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and insufficient information was provided at the application stage.

22 No development shall commence on-site until details of the method of construction of the new means of access, including materials and finishes, visibility sightlines, gradient and surface-water drainage details that prevents surface water run-off from the site entering the public highway, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved access details shall be constructed and fully implemented before the commencement of building and other operations on the site and shall be thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that a satisfactory means of access to the highway and that the access is constructed before the approved buildings, in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and . National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and insufficient information was provided at the application stage.

44 of 119

23 Applications for the approval of reserved matters shall include details of the provision for manoeuvring, loading and unloading of vehicles and the parking of vehicles commensurate with the Residential Parking Standards July 2008 revised December 2012, including unobstructed pedestrian access (minimum width 0.9m) to the primary entrance of each property, including such drawings to demonstrate by vehicle swept paths the ability of vehicles to access and egress the vehicle parking spaces, details of the surface materials for the vehicle manoeuvring and parking areas. The approved motor vehicle manoeuvring, loading and unloading and parking layout shall be constructed and fully implemented within the curtilage of each property before it is occupied or the approved use commences, whichever is the sooner, and the areas of land so provided shall be thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details and shall not be used for any purposes other than the manoeuvring, loading and unloading and parking of vehicles, and access for pedestrians, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

24 Applications for the approval of reserved matters shall be in accordance with Saved Policy C3 and the Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards Supplementary Planning Document; with particular regard to the provision of an appropriate housing mix and implementation of 15% or more of market dwellings being built to lifetime mobility standards, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure an appropriate co-ordinated high quality form of development and to accord with Saved Policy C3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Adopted Local Plan 1996-2011 and Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards Supplementary Planning Document.

25 Applications for the approval of reserved matters shall include details of the provision for secure cycle parking facilities for 2 long and 1 short stay places with a transit route for bicycles to and from the public highway, for each dwelling, such drawings to show the position, design, materials and finishes thereof. The approved secure cycle storage shall be constructed and fully implemented within the curtilage of each property before it is occupied or the approved use commences, whichever is the sooner, and the areas of land so provided shall be thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details and shall not be used for any purposes, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To improve provision for cyclists and discourage the use of the private car wherever possible and in accordance with Saved Policy A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

26 Applications for the approval of reserved matters shall include details of a scheme for the storage (prior to disposal) of refuse and recycling, and details of the refuse/recycling collection point, provided not more than 15m carrying distance from a highway which is a carriageway, and details of the transit route between the storage and collection points, for each dwelling. The approved details shall be implemented within the curtilage of each property before it is occupied or the approved use commences, whichever is the sooner, and the areas of land so provided shall be thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

45 of 119

REASON: In the interests of general amenity, to ensure convenience of arrangements for refuse and recycling storage and collection and to ensure that no obstruction is caused on the adjoining highway, in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

27 No works shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:-

(a) a desk top study carried out by a competent person documenting all the previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report Nos. 2 and 3 and BS10175:2001;

and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

(b) a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as being appropriate by the desk study in accordance with BS10175:2001- Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice;

and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

(c) a detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases when the site is developed and proposals for future maintenance and monitoring. Such scheme shall include nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works.

If during any works contamination is encountered which has not been previously identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme, agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: Information is required prior to commencement as insufficient information was provided and to ensure any soil, gas or water contamination on the site is remediated to protect the proposed occupants of the application site and/or adjacent land and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

28 The development shall not be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of condition 27(c) that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of condition 27(c) has been implemented fully in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority in advance of implementation). Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority such verification shall comprise;

as built drawings of the implemented scheme;

photographs of the remediation works in progress;

46 of 119

certificates demonstrating that imported and/or material left in situ is free of contamination.

Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the scheme approved under condition 27(c), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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 Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

29 No work relating to the construction of the development, hereby approved, including works of demolition or preparation prior to operations, or fitting out, shall take place before the hours of 0730 nor after 1800 Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays nor on Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

30 No deliveries of construction materials or plant and machinery and no removal of any spoil from the site shall take place before the hours of 0730; nor after 1800; Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800; nor after 1300; Saturdays nor on Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

Informative(s):-

1. 1.1 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.

1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre-commencement conditions have been met.

1.3 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £97 per request or £28 where the related permission was for

47 of 119

extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.

2. This Decision Notice must be read in conjunction with a Planning Obligation completed under the terms of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). You are advised to satisfy yourself that you have all the relevant documentation

3 Local Highway Authority:

With respect to the Means of Access Condition consent under the Town and Country Planning Acts must not be taken as approval for any works carried out within or project under or project over any footway, including a Public Right of Way, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the publically maintained highway. The development will involve works within the public highway. It is an offence to commence those works without the permission of the Local Highway Authority, Hampshire County Council. In the interests of highway safety the development must not commence on-site until permission has been obtained from the Local Highway Authority authorising any necessary works, including street lighting and surface water drainage, within the publically maintained highway. Public Utility apparatus may also be affected by the development. Contact the appropriate public utility service to ensure agreement on any necessary alterations.

The construction of the vehicular crossing(s) will require approval and licensing by the Local Highway Authority, further advice about works within the public highway can be obtained from Hampshire County Council’s Area Office, telephone 0300 555 1388.

4 Environment Agency Advice to applicant

Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Thames Region Land Drainage Byelaws, prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 8m of the top of the bank of the Bramley Green Stream, designated a ‘main river’.

48 of 119

15/02704/OUT

Site Location Plan

49 of 119

15/02704/OUT

Illustrative site layout plan

50 of 119

15/02704/OUT Land use parameters plan

51 of 119

Minor Application

Cttee: 2 December Item No. 2 2015

Application no: 15/03134/FUL For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address The Watership Down Inn Freefolk Priors Freefolk Hampshire Proposal Erection of detached building in garden area to provide a total of 4 no. guest rooms for use ancillary to the adjoining public house following demolition of existing outbuildings

Registered: 4 September 2015 Expiry Date: 16 October 2015 Type of Full Planning Case Officer: Gregg Chapman Application: Application 01256 845441 Applicant: The Denee Trust Agent: Mr Richard Goodall Ward: Overton, Laverstoke Ward Member(s): Cllr Ian Tilbury And Steventon Cllr Colin Phillimore

Parish: LAVERSTOKE CP OS Grid Reference: 448316 148713

Recommendation: It is RECOMMENDED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions listed at the end of this report.

Reasons for Approval

1. The provision of tourist accommodation is economic development that would supplement and support the existing public house, extend the current offering, and would support rural tourism, and provide for employment opportunities. In this respect the proposal is in accordance with Saved policy EC8 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 – 2011 and is consistent with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework in terms of supporting the rural economy and tourism.

2. The proposed single-storey contemporary building is considered to be of a good standard of design that would appear as an ancillary building to the Public House. The building would preserve the special character, appearance and setting of, the Freefolk Conservation Area, the setting of the Watership Down Inn Public House, which is a notable building within the Conservation Area and an undesignated heritage asset, and the setting of other listed, and unlisted buildings in the vicinity, and would not cause significant harm to the landscape qualities of the area. As such the proposals comply with Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the National Planning Policy Framework, Saved Policies E1, E2 and E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, and Appendix 4 of the Design and Sustainability SPD (Conservation Areas) and the Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area Appraisal.

3. When account is taken of the nature of the proposed use (i.e. guest/tourist accommodation) where occupants would be likely to visit tourist and leisure facilities, including the major Bombay Sapphire attraction, and utilise opportunities for cycling and walking, together with the presence of a bus service it is considered 52 of 119

that the site is located in a marginally sustainable location for such accommodation. The proposal accords with the National Planning Policy Framework and Saved policy A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 – 2011 in this respect.

4. The development would not cause an adverse impact on highway safety and adequate parking exists to serve the proposed development. As such the proposal complies with Saved Policy A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

5. The proposal would not cause a significant adverse impact to the amenities of residents of neighbouring properties over and above the existing use of the public house and associated public house garden by virtue of noise or disturbance from the use of the proposed building, or from vehicle movements in the existing car park. The proposal, being a single storey building, dug into the slope of the site, sitting mainly below the fence line of the neighbouring property to the north, and away from further boundaries, would not cause any significant impact to the amenities of residents in the vicinity by virtue of any overlooking, overbearing, or overshadowing impact. The proposal would not result in any significant adverse impact to neighbouring amenities above the existing position that would be sufficient so as to warrant the refusal of the application. The proposal therefore accords with Saved policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 – 2011 in this respect.

6. The proposal would conserve the biodiversity value and nature conservation interests of the site and as such the proposal would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

General comments

The application is brought to the Development Control Committee in accordance with the scheme of delegation, given the Officer's recommendation for approval and the number of objections that have been received to the application.

Planning Policy

The site lies within countryside for planning policy purposes and within the Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area.

National Planning Policy/Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)  Core Planning Principles  Section 3 (Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy)  Section 11 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment)  Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment)  Decision Taking  Planning Conditions and Obligations

National Planning Practice Guidance

53 of 119

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies)

 Policy E1 (Development Control)  Policy E2 (Buildings of historic or architectural interest)  Policy E3 (Areas of historic or architectural interest)  Policy E6 (Landscape Character)  Policy E7 (Nature/biodiversity conservation)  Policy EC8 (Rural Tourism)  Policy C1 (Section 106 contributions)  Policy A1 (Car Parking)  Policy A2 (Encouraging walking, cycling and the use of public transport)

Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance

 Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document: Appendix 4 – Conservation Areas; Appendix 5 – Construction Statements; Appendix 14 - Design and Sustainability SPD (Countryside Design Summary); Appendix 16 - Residential Amenity Design Guidance  Landscape and Biodiversity SPD  The Historic Environment: Listed Buildings SPG, February 2003  The Historic Environment: Conservation Areas SPG, February 2003  Landscape Character Assessment SPG  Section 106 Planning Obligations & Community Infrastructure – Interim Planning Document  Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area Appraisal SPD

Other Guidance

 Basingstoke Environment Strategy for Transport (BEST)  Non-residential Parking Standards 2003  National Planning Practice Guidance  The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010  Hampshire Highways Transport Contributions Policy 2007

Description of Site

The Watership Down Inn is designated as a notable building located within the Laverstoke Conservation Area. It is a public house with a restaurant. The existing car park/site entrance is located to the south of the existing public house.

The nearest residential properties are located immediately to the north of the site. The nearest of these dwellings (Flint Cottage/no. 12) is located approximately 1.5m from the flank wall of the pub. The rear garden of the neighbouring property runs parallel to the northern site boundary.

Proposal

The application proposes the erection of a detached building within the garden area of the existing public house to provide a total of four guest rooms for use ancillary to the adjoining public house following demolition of existing outbuildings.

54 of 119

The proposed building is curved in shape and measures 15.5m in length across the frontage and 22.3m across the rear, it is 8.7m in depth at the deepest point (eastern most unit) and 7.2m at the shallowest. The footprint of the building would be approximately 154m². The building is proposed to be dug into the slope of the site, so that the height of the building, relative to the proposed finished ground level, at the front of the site, would be 3.4m in height to the highest point (the westerly most unit) and 2.8m at the lowest point. To the rear of the building, nearest to the neighbouring property to the north, the building is proposed to be approximately 2.2m in height for the eastern part (towards the neighbouring dwelling), which is 0.2m below the fence line. The western most part/unit steps up to 2.7m in height. Due to the siting, design and orientation of the proposed building, the building at its nearest point to the boundary is approximately 2.5m distant (the western most part), whereas nearest location to the neighbouring property to the north. The eastern most part of the building, is approximately 10m from the boundary with the neighbour. The proposed building, at the nearest point would be 14m from the neighbouring dwelling.

The application is accompanied by a ‘Design, Access and Planning Statement’ which incorporates a Heritage Statement, and an Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Survey.

Consultations

Parish Council – With the planning permission being sought for the Watership Down Inn, L&F PC approved of the new plan however wanted to ensure that the car parking arrangements would be reviewed. Can you please advise whether this is being considered.

Cllr Tilbury – No response received

Cllr Phillimore – No response received

Highways – No objection, subject to conditions

Transport Officer - When measured in terms of sustainable transport modes the Highway Authority consider the overall assessment as being not sustainable

Trees – No objection, subject to conditions

Landscape – No objection, subject to conditions

Biodiversity – No objection, subject to informative

Conservation – No objection, subject to conditions and a legal agreement

Environmental Health – No objection, subject to conditions

Public Observations

12 letters - Objection

Objections in Respect of Need for Development/Principle of Development  The existing three rental rooms are not at full occupancy c.50%. There are other offerings in the area. 55 of 119

 There is no requirement for the development.  It is claimed that the proposal is to safeguard the future of the pub. There will be a significant spend where cash flow is the problem. Given the existing rooms and competition it doesn’t make sense

Objections in Respect of Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area  Rural areas need to be protected from inappropriate over development.  Proposal will be highly visible including from footpaths and the B3400 and is out of character with the Conservation Area.  Proposal is a double height barn conversion. It is not replacing existing buildings which are two sheds/stables/chicken sheds.  Would be light pollution.  Units take up most of the garden space and will increase the size of the pub by 50%. Would result in the loss of protected trees by 40%, more could be threatened during construction. This is contrary to a refusal at 11 Freefolk Priors by a Housing Association. Hedges on site already removed.  There is an alternative to build on stilts above the car park – could then park under this.

Objections in Respect of Amenity  Will result in overlooking, overshadowing, and loss of privacy to properties to north and south  Use of building could be noisy including use of bathrooms (extractor fans and flushing toilets). Use of bathrooms could lead to adverse smells. Would add to existing noise from use of pub and existing noise/smell from extraction units.  Noise from additional movements in car park and an additional 20 guests would be excessive  Would be an undesirable intensification of a commercial use in a predominantly residential area and will have a significant detrimental effect on the amenities and environment of the nearby residential properties.  Have previously been disturbed by guests with queries as no staff live on site

Objections in Respect of Highway Matters  Public house access is awkward.  Exit onto B3400 is dangerous. Have been accidents.  More traffic will park in Priory Lane which is a dangerous single track road. Agricultural and commercial traffic uses road. Staff and customers already park on the Lane.  More movements should not be allowed. Significant risk to safety.  Parking is already insufficient. Would like to see more parking if approved. Past planning applications have insisted on a minimum of 18 spaces. Results in unsafe displacement to Lane (including coaches) which can block residents in – specious to suggest overflow car parking at site 400m away. There is a right of way through car park to the neighbouring property which cannot be compromised - access to this resulted in the loss of spaces in the car park.  The site is not sustainable. The bus service is not a reasonable service. The bus stop is a long way from the pub. The pavement is poor.

Objections in Respect of Ecology  Will result in a loss of habitat. Owls and bats nest in the trees and there are bats birds and amphibians and reptiles which live in the area. There are dormice, slow worms, and frogs and toads in the area. 56 of 119

Objections in Respect of Other Matters  Makes no sense as a business, unless a change of use is planned in the future which would result in the loss of the pub. Concerned that the proposal could be to smuggle housing development by stealth past planning and thus the loss of the pub. In time will be sold separately. The applicant is a property developer. The cost of the rental would not cover the build cost.  There will be another application for a member staff accommodation for staff to stay on site.  Application is purely for commercial purposes. No benefits to area.  Would result in the loss of the pub garden, takes up most of it. People will not want to sit in the garden if overlooked by the units. No idea why children’s play equipment removed from garden.  There is a covenant to stop the development of the garden.  Concerned that this will only be the start of the development of the garden.  Drawings do not show the pub or dwellings in the area and do not have written dimensions on them.  The rooms are larger than RIBA recommendations for a starter home.

Relevant Planning History

15/00508/FUL Erection of detached building in garden Withdrawn 20.04.15 area to provide a total of 5 no. guest rooms for use ancillary to the adjoining public house following demolition of existing outbuildings

T/00524/14/TCA T1 Sycamore - fell Granted 19.11.14 G1 Beech - raise canopy to approx. 3m and prune and remove all larger deadwood to allow better access

T/00158/13/TCA Fell 7 Lawson Cypress No 20.03.13 objection

BDB/75122 Erection of garage. Creation of new Granted 25.11.11 access and reconfiguration of public house car park (part retrospective). Retention of retaining walls, steps, hardstanding and gate.

NB – History relates to neighbouring dwelling, other than ‘reconfiguration of public house car park’

BDB/69902 Replacement of existing chimney Refused 12.02.09

BDB/68425 Installation of new kitchen extract Refused 29.05.08 ducting and ventilation system 57 of 119

BDB/43373 Erection of a conservatory Granted 29.07.98

BDB/42163 Erection of conservatory Refused 24.12.97

BDB/33042 Provision of fire escape Granted 29.04.92

BDB/22164 Display of non-illuminated painted pole Refused 11.06.87 sign

BDB/10695 First floor extension to provide Granted 17.12.80 additional living accommodation

BDB/09295 Erection of six single storey motel units Refused 11.03.80 each approximately 10ft x 18ft Appeal 15.01.81 Dismissed

BDB/06794 Single storey extension to the rear of Granted 24.10.78 the existing building to provide additional bar space indoor beer store and internal public toilets

BDB/05844 Erection of pole sign – field on the Granted May 1978 B.3400

BDC 4512 Erection of lounge bar, dining area, Refused 24.06.77 kitchen and toilets

BDC 2287 Erection of saloon bar, dining area, Refused 12.01.76 kitchen and toilet

BDC 2217/A Inn name sign Granted Nov 1975

BDC 2090/A Direction sign on the B3400 Refused Dec 1975

BDC 93 Erection of single storey extension for Granted June 1974 toilet accommodation, bar extension and beer store.

KWR 5623 Formation of car park Granted Nov 1965

Assessment

The most relevant planning history is that which relates to the application for the erection of a detached building for five ancillary guest rooms, that was withdrawn earlier this year

58 of 119

(application 15/00508/FUL), and the application for the erection of six motel units BDB/09295).

Application 15/00508/FUL was withdrawn, following Officer concerns that; 1) the proposed development would cause ‘less than substantial harm’ to the Conservation Area and to the setting of the Public House by virtue of the then proposed siting, height and significant length of the then proposed building, resulting in the building competing with the Public House and visually encroaching into the pastoral landscape, and 2) a dominant and overbearing impact, and a loss of light to the garden of Flint Cottage. The benefits of the development were not considered to sufficiently outweigh the harm. As the application was withdrawn, a determination of the Council was not formally made.

Application BDB/09295 was dismissed at appeal in 1981, with the planning inspector noting that the proposal was contrary to then policies which aimed to ensure that “this type of facility is located on principal Country roads and on strategic routes of national importance”. The Inspector found that harm would be caused to the character of the area, stating that, “…the addition of motel units would introduce a new development of a commercial nature which would be out of keeping with the rural character of the area”, and that a siting to the north west of the site “would appear particularly prominent”. The Inspector also found that additional activity at the site over and above that which is already associated with the public house would be harmful to the residential amenities of the adjoining properties.

Principle of development

In determining planning applications, a Local Planning Authority (LPA) must have regard to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that proposals are determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF confirms that the development plan is the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with the development plan should be approved, and development that conflicts with it should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is one such material consideration, and that is discussed below.

• Development Plan Policy

Saved policy EC8 of the Local Plan (Rural Tourism) states that proposals for tourism in the countryside that improve or extend the range of tourist facilities, including tourist accommodation will be permitted, provided that this; would (i) result from the conversion of a suitable rural building or, (ii) form part of a farm diversification scheme; or (iii) is an extension to existing facilities, of scale appropriate to its location. It is only necessary to meet one of these three criteria.

The proposal is not for the conversion of a rural building, and does not form part of a farm diversification scheme. The proposal is to extend the offering of tourist accommodation at an existing facility, namely a public house. The principle of the proposed tourist accommodation development is therefore allowed for through Saved policy EC8 (as set out above), although this is subject to the consideration of the scale.

The proposal is for four units of accommodation. In terms of the amount (number) of units, this is considered to be an appropriately low number of additional units of accommodation for this rural location, which is proportionate to the existing business. In terms of the scale (size, height, and massing) of the building, and the impact on neighbouring amenity, and

59 of 119 the scale of the impact on the wider area (including from vehicle movements) and comings and goings, this is considered in further detail below.

• The National Planning Policy Framework

Paragraph 28 of the NPPF states that, "Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:  support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings;  promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses;  support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres; and,  promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship.

The provision of tourist accommodation would supplement and support the existing public house, and extend the current offering, and would support rural tourism. It is considered that the proposal, which would support an existing business, would be broadly consistent with the aims of Paragraph 28 of the NPPF.

Tourism development constitutes a 'main town centre use' as defined by the NPPF. The sequential approach with regards to main town centres uses should though not be applied to applications for small scale rural development (NPPF paragraph 25). The proposal is for four units of tourist accommodation in a rural area away from a main town centre. It is considered that the scale and nature of this proposal would not materially harm the vitality of the town or district centres within the borough.

- Concluding Comments in Respect of the Principle of Development

The principle of the development of tourist accommodation related to the public houses is allowed for, and can be accepted at the site, subject to further policy considerations as set out below, including with respect to the scale of the development. It is though considered that this would need to be subject to a condition to ensure that it is only occupied for tourist accommodation and that the accommodation is ancillary to the public house (as is proposed), so as to prevent any permanent residence. The Conservation Officer suggests a legal agreement to ensure this link, and that the building is not sold separately. Government advice is that conditions should always be used in preference to a legal agreement, and it is considered that such conditions would achieve the necessary and on- going linkage.

It is noted that development plan and national policy are supportive of the principle of rural development for tourism including tourist accommodation, and that that is a notable change in circumstance from the dismissed 1981 appeal where it was identified that the principle of tourist accommodation was only allowed in locations on “principal Country roads and on strategic routes of national importance”. 60 of 119

Sustainability of Location

The NPPF defines 'Sustainable transport modes' as "Any efficient, safe and accessible means of transport with overall low impact on the environment, including walking and cycling, low and ultra-low emission vehicles, car sharing and public transport."

There are existing bus stops approximately 400 metres to the east of the site on the B3400 that offer reasonable opportunity for onward travel, approximately half hourly during the day, and as late as c.2300 and as early as c.0700. There is a footpath that runs along the B3400 to the bus stops and beyond, including providing pedestrian access to the extensive right of way network in the vicinity, and the recently completed Bombay Sapphire distillery (approximately 0.5 miles distant – which was found by the Council to be in a marginally sustainable location).

When account is taken of the nature of the proposed use (i.e. guest/tourist accommodation) where occupants would be likely to visit tourist and leisure facilities in the vicinity and would not need access to facilities/services such as schools, employment, and supermarkets, it is considered that the site is not located in an unsustainable location, and is marginally sustainable. This conclusion is reached due to the availability of public transport (bus service/stops) and walking and cycling opportunities in the vicinity, and a number of tourist and leisure facilities including walking/hiking, cycling and fishing, and the presence of a major attraction (Bombay Sapphire) in the vicinity, which could be visited from the site. Of further weight in the consideration of whether the proposal is ‘sustainable’, in respect of the location of the site, and with reference to reducing the reliance on the private car, is the fact that the accommodation would be linked to the existing public house, where meals could be taken, and the facilities frequented.

Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area

The site is located within the Laverstoke Area of Special Landscape Quality and within the Freefolk Conservation Area. Views of the siting of the proposed building are available from the public realm including from the south and in longer views, but more immediately from the east, within the Conservation Area from Priory Lane to the front of, and in the context of, the existing public house, where the site is notably elevated from the highway.

The Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area Appraisal SPD refers specifically to the Watership Down Inn, stating that, “The other noteworthy buildings along the southern end of Priory Lane include a pair of one and a half storey thatched cottages and, at right angles to the cottages and the road, is the Watership Down Inn”.

The Conservation Area Appraisal identifies the special significance of the Conservation Area as;

“The special qualities and appearance of Freefolk are derived primarily from the distinctive character of the local topography. The steeply rising slopes either side of a gently curving river and its floodplain create intimate short range views of groups of buildings in often verdant settings. By contrast there are also key long range vistas which combine the landscape with distant landmark buildings.

Although the settlement is irregular in plan form, it has a strong visual cohesion. This is created by a predominant vernacular building tradition and, in particular, the use of flint as a walling material, with red brick dressings and details. The character is essentially that of

61 of 119 a small residential community. However, the close relationship with the countryside and the River Test provides a strong open and pastoral quality to the settlement. This is reinforced by the well-spaced and open arrangement of the buildings, which forms a fundamental element of the distinctive appearance of the Conservation Area.”

Development within a conservation area, or that affects the setting of a listed building should only be permitted where proposals would preserve, or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

The Watership Down Inn, is not afforded statutory protection as a listed building. It is though identified as a building of local interest within the Conservation Area Appraisal. It is considered to constitute a non-designated heritage asset for the purposes of the NPPF.

The application proposes the erection of a single storey, contemporary, flat roof building on a curved footprint, with a lightweight glazed façade. The design of the building is considered to be of a good standard. The building is proposed to be sited adjacent to the existing public house, mainly within an existing general amenity area, and partly within the beer garden, elevated from the road to the east that serves the Public House. By virtue of the low height, the digging in to the slope, and the dimensions of the building, it is considered that the building would have an ancillary relationship to the Public House and would not compete with it.

The building would be visible in the wider landscape, but given the siting, size, design, the materials to be used (brick, timber and sedum grass roof), the presence of existing trees/vegetation, and the ability to secure a scheme of further planting, it is considered that it would not be dominant, or harmful to the wider landscape, and would be read in the context of the further buildings in the vicinity. The building would preserve the special character, appearance and setting of, the Freefolk Conservation Area, the setting of the Watership Down Inn Public House, which is a notable building within the Conservation Area and an undesignated heritage asset, and the setting of other listed, and unlisted buildings in the vicinity, and would not cause significant harm to the landscape qualities of the area.

- Trees The site stands in the Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area, and as such trees within the site are afforded protection in this respect. The application is accompanied by an Arboricultural Report. Four trees are proposed to be removed to facilitate the development (six were proposed to be removed for application 15/00508/FUL). Of these four trees none were found to be A class trees (trees of high quality), one of the trees was found to be a B class category tree (a tree of moderate quality), namely a mature Ash in good condition. Two trees were found to be C class trees (trees of low quality) – these were a Cherry and a Sycamore. The one further tree, a Cherry, was found to have a poor condition and structure and was unclassified. The Tree Officer has assessed the application and advises that, “The proposed development will require the removal of a number of poor quality trees, which could be usefully replaced via appropriate mitigation planting elsewhere on the site.”

The trees that are proposed to be removed are to the rear of the site, and there are a number of further trees on the site and within the surrounding area. As such, the public amenity value that the trees offer, given that they can be classed as poorer quality trees, away from the public realm, is limited, and it is considered that a scheme of replacement planting of these trees could be secured through condition that would in time result in a net benefit in terms of the standard of trees on site. 62 of 119

- Lighting

Third party objectors refer to light pollution from ancillary lighting which is proposed to the front of the building and from the proposed rooms. It is considered that the level of lighting associated with the rooms, and the proposed outside lighting to the front would highlight the presence of the building in the evening. However, given the low overall height of the proposed building, the ancillary relationship with the Public House (with open glass conservatory), and the residential properties in the vicinity, it is considered that the proposal would not cause any significant additional harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the Conservation Area and the landscape qualities of the area. The limited impact can be further reduced by the imposition of a condition that would require a scheme of measures be implemented to address any evening light spill from windows.

Impact on neighbouring amenities

The boundary of Flint Cottages, Priory Lane, is sited approximately 2.5m to the north of the proposed building at the nearest point, and 10m at the furthest. The dwelling at Flint Cottage (taken from the nearest point, which is a ‘glass-box’ single storey rear extension currently under construction) is approximately 14m from the proposed building. The proposed guest room building the subject of this application would be a single storey building. The dimensions of the building are as set out above under ‘Proposal’.

The proposed flat roof building would, mainly, sit below the existing fence line that separates Flint Cottages with the application site and is proposed to be 20cm lower than the fence. The western most part of the building which would accommodate the fourth unit steps up in height from the remainder of the building by approximately 60cm, with an overall height of 2.8m, so that part of the very top of the building could be seen from the neighbour’s garden. This step up is approximately 22m from the dwelling at Flint Cottages as extended. Flint Cottage has some domestic planting in the rear garden that would in part screen this part of the building. It is considered that the proposal would not cause any significant harm to the amenities of Flint Cottages in terms of any overbearing or dominant impact that would be sufficient so as to warrant the refusal of the application. It is noted that the proposed heights are lower than those associated with residential outbuildings that can be erected under permitted development.

By virtue of the distance of the proposed development to further residential property/dwellings in the vicinity, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in any significant harm to the amenities of occupants of any further dwellings.

- Noise – 1981 Appeal Situation

The Appeal Inspector for the 1981 Appeal found that six motel units of unspecified design, in an unspecified location within the site, would, by virtue of the “further extraneous traffic and activity” in the area over and above that which is already associated with the public house, be harmful to the residential amenities of the adjoining properties. This followed the Local Planning Authority (LPA) refusal on these grounds. The LPA Appeal Statement stated that;

“A letter of complaint was received concerning the original application for this development. The letter was considered on its merits as it included suggestions as to the noise that might be incurred by an increase in the existing development in this area, the matter was referred to the Department of Environmental Health. It was pointed out that the appeal site lies in an area where there is a very low background noise level,

63 of 119 particularly at night. Intensification of commercial activities on the site is likely to increase the noise level produced and could cause a nuisance to the inhabitants of dwellings in the vicinity of the Public House. Even if it is possible to keep noise within the premises to a reasonable level, it may be expected that there will be noise from persons and vehicles using the car park and narrow access to the site. Whilst it may be possible to control the noise from the new development, and with the goodwill and co-operation of the landlord of the premises taken into account, it still may not be practically possible to control the noise from an increased number of individuals and vehicles that the proposed use is likely to generate on this site”.

There has been no significant material change to the level of development in the surrounding area since the 1981 Appeal decision. The proposal is now for four units, whereas the motel application was for six units, which is not significantly different.

There has, however, been a notable change in planning policy position in respect of the principle of development, as is set out above. Local Plan policy allows for ancillary development for tourist accommodation and National Policy encourages rural economic development. Local and National policy is now accepting of some new commercial development in these circumstances, in rural locations, associated with which is a level of increased activity.

It is also noted that the public house has subsequently been extended (BDB/10695 & BDB/43373 refer) which increases the business offering, and the activity at the site.

As set out below the Highways Officer advises that there would be some linked trips that would reduce the overall number of movements/disturbance from vehicle movements.

It is considered that the proposed development would not result in any significant additional detriment to the amenities of residents in the vicinity over and above the existing situation as a result of the associated activity/movements which would be associated with the proposed accommodation sufficient to warrant refusal of the application, where planning policy is accepting of the principal of development, given the existing nature and size of the business, and the limited uplift in movements (including pedestrian noise/voices). There is no objection in this respect from the Environmental Health Officer.

• Disturbance from Use of Rooms to Flint Cottage

The occupants of Flint Cottage have objected, in part, as they consider that there will be unacceptable disturbance from the use of the rooms, including the ground floor bathrooms which face their garden area (including from extractor fans, activity in rooms, and lighting). Whilst there may be some awareness of the use of these rooms, it is considered that this would be limited given that they are ground floor bathrooms set off the boundary, and would not be any more detrimental to amenity than the existing residential context and that of the context of the neighbouring pub and pub garden. In terms of the lighting, whilst this could highlight the presence of built form, it is considered that seeing illumination from the ground floor windows would not itself cause significant harm to amenity.

- Overlooking/Privacy

The proposed guest room building the subject of this application would be a single storey building. The proposed building includes four high level windows that face towards the northern boundary. These windows would serve bathrooms and would have a lower cill level approximately 1.8m above finished floor level, which would restrict outward views.

64 of 119

The windows would look on to the boundary treatment. As such it is considered that there would not be any significant overlooking that would cause undue harm to the amenities of Flint Cottage/further property to the north.

The residential property to the south (11, Priory Lane) that the building would face towards is at the nearest point approximately 25m from the proposed building (which is also elevated relative to the neighbouring property). The dwelling at 11, Priory Lane is located to the east of its plot. There would be a separation distance of approximately 42.5m between buildings. The proposed windows are oriented to the south west away from 11, Priory Lane. The separation distances are considered to be acceptable so as to ensure that there would not be any significant overlooking that would cause undue harm to the amenities of neighbours.

By virtue of the distance of the proposed development to further residential property/dwellings in the vicinity, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in any significant harm to the amenities of occupants of any further dwellings.

- Lights

Third parties have raised concern that lighting could cause harm to neighbouring amenity. The submitted application form indicates “low level lights on southern side only – details to be agreed”. It is considered that an appropriately low level of lighting, similar to that which may be expected for a household, can be secured through condition.

Highway Matters

The application proposes the use of the existing access from Priory Lane, and the use of the existing car park, which is currently laid out to provide 19 car parking spaces. The application form submitted with the application indicates that there are 22 parking spaces available. The Agent had previously clarified (in communication on application 15/00508/FUL) that additional space is available within the car park where cars park in a “central spine” at right angles to the Highway. There are no additional parking spaces proposed.

The Highways Officer advises that with the proposed development, and to accord with Adopted parking standards “the expected motor vehicle parking for the proposal would be as follows: Guest accommodation: 1 space per bedroom; 7 guest rooms = 7 spaces. Eating/drinking: 1 space per 5m² of dining area/bar area/dance floor; trading area 95m² = 19 spaces. Total expectation 26 spaces compared with a stated 22 spaces within the existing car park.”

The Applicant has previously suggested that assessing each element of the proposal separately may involve some double counting with respect of motor vehicle parking. The Highway Officer notes this, but states that, “It is accepted that while not all of the guest bedrooms may be fully occupied throughout the year, a worst case will exist during peak periods of attraction to the area”. The Highway Officer therefore continues their assessment to look at whether any overspill parking from the site onto Priory Lane caused as a consequence of this proposed development would cause significant harm to the free flow and safe movement of vehicles on the highway network. The Highway Officer advises that, “Overspill parking adjacent to the site on Priory Lane is limited and the proximity of the B3400 London Road junction compounds the potential hazards from ad hoc on-street parking, albeit the limited availability of on-street could be self-enforcing if drivers park responsibly”. The Highway Officer does not raise an objection to the

65 of 119 proposed development subject to conditions in respect of the laying out of parking spaces, a construction method statement and details of cycle parking provision (given the opportunity for cycling in the area, as acknowledged by the Agent).

It is considered that the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the free flow and safe movement of the Highway network from the proposed use of the access, the amount of vehicle movements, the amount of parking available, or any offsite parking that may occur.

Third party objectors raise a number of concerns regarding the safety of the junction of Priory Lane and the B3400 London Road. Whilst those concerns are noted the level of use associated with the development compared to the existing level of use would be minimal, and would not be likely to result in significant queues turning into/out of the junction. The visibility at the junction is considered to be of an acceptable standard. The Highway Officer has not raised any concerns in this respect. It is considered that the movements associated with the proposed development using the junction would not result in any significant additional risk of harm to the free flow and safe movement of vehicles on the local highway network.

Biodiversity

The Biodiversity Officer has advised that following an assessment of the buildings to be demolished (single skin with no void with only limited weatherboarding) that the buildings have negligible potential to support bats.

It is noted that the application also proposes the removal of four trees, and that a number of species, protected and otherwise have been stated as being observed by third parties in the vicinity of the site. It is also noted that a wildflower meadow has been recently planted in the vicinity of the site.

The application site itself is an ancillary part of the wider curtilage of the public house, which also includes an adjacent beer garden. It is considered that the Biodiversity Officers assessment in respect of which species to consider the presence of, or otherwise at the site (i.e. bats) within the buildings to be demolished is appropriate. There are no known records, or claims of further protected species inhabiting the site and the area of the site that the building would be installed upon does not lend itself in its current form to that of a habitat for species.

Whilst there may be a number of protected species in the vicinity of the site, and a number of habitats, and whilst the application does propose the removal of four trees which could provide some foraging habitat, the siting of the building would not have a direct impact on habitat outside of the site, and the loss of the foraging habitat of the trees is not considered significant given the relative abundance of vegetation in the area.

The proposed building also includes a sedum grass roof. The Biodiversity Officer advises that “the green roof is welcome as a valid enhancement to local biodiversity”.

Section 106 agreement - need and compliance with statutory tests

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations enable Local Authorities to raise funds from developments to provide, maintain and enhance community infrastructure within the vicinity of a development. Whilst Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council has not yet finalised and adopted a levy, contributions may still be secured via a s.106 ‘Legal

66 of 119

Agreement’. Any obligation contained within a Legal Agreement must comply with the tests set out in the CIL regulations (as replicated within the NPPF) which are, that an obligation must be:

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Saved Policies C1 and A2 of the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Planning Guidance set out the Council’s approach to the provision of infrastructure and community facilities needed as a result of the development.

In respect of this application for guest accommodation it has been identified through the Council's 'scoping' process that contributions are not to be sought given the nature of the development as a non-residential development and the lack of any suitable planned projects.

As set out above, it is considered that the site is ‘marginally sustainable’ and given the circumstances of the site it is difficult in this instance to see how a financial contribution towards public transport, walking or cycling, even if any new physical infrastructure could be designed to be appropriate to the rural character, could make the proposal any more ‘sustainable’ in this respect. As is set out above, the proposed development, even with the absence of a financial contribution would not give rise to an adverse impact on the local highway network, or affect the free and safe flow of vehicles on the highway. In the particular circumstances of this case it is considered acceptable that a financial contribution towards highway infrastructure is not secured.

Other matters

The future intentions of the applicant and questions of their motives for making the application are not material considerations in the determination of the application, which must be determined on its own merits. If the application was to be approved, and any future application for a change of use made, that would need to be considered on its own merits.

Any future application for development within the garden, which is a concern of third parties, would be determined on its own merits if such an application were to be submitted.

The presence of rats or otherwise is not, in itself a planning matter.

The application meets the requirements for validation. The plans have a scale bar and are to a recognised scale that allows the dimensions to be measured. There is no requirement for the development to be shown in the context of surrounding buildings this can be assessed using the location plan, and the block plan – although it is noted that, contrary to third party comment, that the public house building and Flint Cottage are shown.

Third parties suggest that the proposal will take up most of the garden of the building. For the avoidance of doubt, the building floor area is proposed to be 154m². This would leave approximately 7,850m² within the garden area for use as a pub garden.

A covenant is a private matter between the parties that the covenant relates to, and is not a planning matter.

67 of 119

Planning Balance

The principle of ancillary tourist accommodation within the countryside to support the existing public house is allowed for in national and local policy, and the application would deliver economic development, namely four guest rooms that would provide an additional source of income for the public house, and an additional facility for tourists. These are considered to be material considerations that weigh in support of the application.

It is considered that the adverse impacts of the proposed development, considered in their totality (i.e. limited impact to the amenity of the area), do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the aforementioned benefits when assessed against the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework considered as a whole. Accordingly the application is recommended for permission.

Conditions

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority: 34198 01 P2 – Proposed Site Plan 34198 02 P2 – Proposed Plan 34198 03 P3 – Proposed Elevations & Cross-Section REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this planning permission. REASON: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

3 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the building the subject of this application shall only be used as short-term accommodation ancillary to the use of the Watership Down Inn, and for no other purpose whatsoever. The owner shall ensure that a log book is completed, and retained, documenting the details of all guests using the accommodation (including their name and address) and their length of stay. The log book shall be made available to the Local Planning Authority for inspection within 28 days of any written request. REASON: This use is only permitted on the basis that it would provide accommodation ancillary to the existing operations on the site and tourist accommodation. Other uses may not be acceptable to the Local Planning Authority in this location. This is in accordance with Saved Policies EC8 and C1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4 No development shall commence on-site until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the hereby permitted new building have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The submitted details shall include samples, along with details of brick bonding and mortar/render colour and texture. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the approved schedule unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance

68 of 119

with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011 and to preserve the character, appearance or setting of the conservation area and the setting of the existing public house building, in accordance with Saved Policy E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework. Details are required prior to the commencement of development to ensure an appropriate standard of development is planned and allowed for in construction.

5 Prior to the installation of any windows or doors, sections and elevations of the windows and doors (at a scale of 1:5) shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall be referenced against the approved plans, and shall show the relationship with the surrounding fabric. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the approved schedule unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To preserve or enhance the character, appearance or setting of the conservation area, in accordance with Saved Policy E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

6 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, no development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape proposals have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include replacement tree planting for the four trees to be removed, proposed finished levels or contours, hard surfacing materials and minor artefacts and structure (e.g. furniture, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, external services, etc.). Soft landscape details shall include a planting plan, specification (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment), schedules of plants, (including replacement trees where appropriate), noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate, as well as any works to enhance wildlife habitats where appropriate. In addition, implementation timetables and maintenance programmes detailing all operations to be carried out to allow successful establishment of soft landscaping, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any part of the development. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of species, size and number as originally approved, to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework. Details are required prior to development commencing so as to ensure that sufficient space is left for appropriate landscaping and that the right type of landscaping is considered as an integral part of the development.

7 No development shall take place on site until a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape management plan shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

69 of 119

REASON: To ensure that due regard is paid to the continuing enhancement and maintenance of amenity afforded by landscape features of communal public, nature conservation or historical significance the area in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework. Details are required prior to the commencement of development to ensure that suitable arrangements are in place for landscape management.

8 No glazing shall be installed until such time as details of a scheme for the restriction of light spill from within the proposed building is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011 and to preserve the character, appearance or setting of the conservation area and the setting of the existing public house building, in accordance with Saved Policy E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

9 No external lighting shall be installed on site until plans showing the type of light appliance, the height and position of fitting, illumination levels and light spillage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting approved shall be installed and shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no further external lighting whatsoever shall be installed. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to minimise unnecessary light spillage above and outside the development site in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011 and to preserve the character, appearance or setting of the conservation area and the setting of the existing public house building, in accordance with Saved Policy E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

10 Protective measures, including fencing, ground protection, supervision, working procedures and special engineering solutions shall be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural report provided by Sapling Arboricultural Ltd, ref: J778.02, August 2015.or any alternative scheme that shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that appropriate measures are taken to safeguard trees and hedgerow in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

11 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement that demonstrates safe and coordinated systems of work affecting or likely to affect the public highway and or all motorised and or non-motorised highway users, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall include for:

70 of 119

i. means of access (temporary or permanent) to the site from the adjoining maintainable public highway; ii. the parking and turning of vehicles of site operatives and visitors off carriageway (all to be established within one week of the commencement of development); iii. loading and unloading of plant and materials away from the maintainable public highway; iv. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development away from the maintainable public highway; v. wheel washing facilities or an explanation why they are not necessary; vi. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; vii. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; viii. a scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and ix. the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway, particularly during the Monday to Friday AM peak (08.00 to 09.00) and PM peak (16.30 to 18.00) periods. x. the routes to be used by construction traffic to access and egress the site so as to avoid undue interference with the safety and operation of the public highway and adjacent roads, including construction traffic holding areas both on and off the site as necessary. REASON: To ensure that the construction process is undertaken in a safe and convenient manner that limits impact on local roads and the amenities of nearby occupiers, the area generally and in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. Details are required prior to the commencement of development as construction vehicle movements will occur from the outset.

12 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or the approved use commence, whichever is the sooner, until secure cycle parking facilities for 4 long stay places and transit route to and from the public highway, have been provided in accordance with detailed drawings to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, such drawings to show the position, design, materials and finishes thereof. The approved secure cycle storage shall be constructed and fully implemented before occupation or the approved use commences, whichever is the sooner, and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To improve provision for cyclists and discourage the use of the private car wherever possible and in accordance with Saved Policy A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

13 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or the use commence, whichever is the sooner, until provision for turning (enter, turn and leave in a forward gear), manoeuvring, loading and unloading of vehicles and the parking of 22 vehicles, together with unobstructed pedestrian access (minimum width 0.9m) to the primary entrance of the property, have been made within the curtilage of the property and the areas of land so provided shall be thereafter maintained and shall not be used for any purposes other than the turning, manoeuvring, loading and unloading and parking of vehicles and bicycles, and access for pedestrians, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

71 of 119

REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policies E1, A1 and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

14 No work relating to the construction of the development hereby approved, including works of demolition or preparation prior to operations, or fitting out, shall take place before the hours of 0730 nor after 1800 Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays nor on Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

15 No deliveries of construction materials or plant and machinery and no removal of any spoil from the site shall take place before the hours of 0730 nor after 1800 Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays nor on Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

16 The building hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the existing building on site that is shown to be demolished has been permanently demolished and all of the demolition materials and debris resulting there from has been removed from the site. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011 and to preserve the character, appearance or setting of the conservation area and the setting of the existing public house building, in accordance with Saved Policy E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informative(s):-

1 1.1 - The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.

1.2 - This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre-commencement conditions have been met.

1.3 - The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £97 per request or £28 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for

72 of 119

each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.

2 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and proactive manner:-

• offering a pre-application advice; • seeking further information following receipt of the application;

In this instance:

• the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, • In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

3 If at any time during the proposed works bats, or signs of bats, are found then all works must stop and advice should be sought from Natural England before any further work on the buildings proceeds. All bats and their roost sites are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 from disturbance and harm

4 The applicant’s attention is also drawn to the protection of breeding birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This makes it an offence to kill or harm birds or damage or destroy their eggs. To avoid contravening these provisions it would be advisable to avoid carrying out any work that might damage an active nest during the bird breeding season (March to August inclusive).

5 Consent under the Town and Country Planning Acts must not be taken as approval for any works carried out within or project under or project over any footway, including a Public Right of Way, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the publically maintained highway. The development will involve works within the public highway. It is an offence to commence those works without the permission of the Local Highway Authority, Hampshire County Council. In the interests of highway safety the development must not commence on-site until permission has been obtained from either the Local Highway Authority authorising any necessary works, including street lighting and surface water drainage, within the publically maintained highway. Public Utility apparatus may also be affected by the development. Contact the appropriate public utility service to ensure agreement on any necessary alterations. Advice about works within the public highway can be obtained from Hampshire County Council’s Area Office, telephone 0300 555 1388.

73 of 119

15/03134/FUL Site Location Plan

74 of 119

15/03134/FUL

Proposed Site plan

75 of 119

15/03134/FUL Proposed elevations and cross section

76 of 119

Minor Application

Cttee: 2 December Item No. 3 2015

Application no: 15/02236/FUL For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Sandham House Pound Lane Burghclere Hampshire Proposal Residential development of 6 no. dwellings and erection of replacement garage and store to Sandham House

Registered: 8 July 2015 Expiry Date: 21 October 2015 Type of Full Planning Case Officer: Patricia Logie Application: Application 01256 845457 Applicant: Mr & Mrs Vaughan Agent: Mr Lee Battersby Smith Ward: Burghclere, Ward Member(s): Cllr John Izett Highclere And St Cllr Graham Falconer Mary Bourne Parish: BURGHCLERE CP OS Grid Reference: 446415 160873

Recommendation: That the application be APPROVED subject to the applicant being invited to enter into a legal agreement (in accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and Policies C1, C2 and C9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011) between the applicant and the Borough and County Councils to secure:

Affordable housing, landscape management plan, open space and play and recreation

Should the requirements set out above not be satisfactorily secured, then the Planning and Development Manager be delegated to REFUSE permission for appropriate reasons.

On completion of the legal agreement(s) the Planning and Development Manager be delegated to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Reasons for Approval

1. The proposed development would deliver housing development in accordance with the Borough's Land Supply requirements. The proposal therefore accords with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 in relation to housing supply.

2. The proposal would conserve the biodiversity value and nature conservation interests of the site and as such the proposal would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

77 of 119

3. The proposed development would provide safe access in accordance with highway requirements, and as such would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 and with Saved Policies E1(iii) and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

4. The proposed development would have an impact on the landscape character and scenic quality of the area but the enclosed nature of the site and the mitigation measures proposed result in a scheme that balances landscape character and scenic quality whilst delivering housing development. The proposal therefore complies National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

5. Through the provision of a Section 106 agreement the development will provide adequate infrastructure to mitigate the impact of the development in relation to community provision, open space, affordable housing, transport and education. The development therefore complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); Saved Policies C1, C2 and C9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011; the Community Infrastructure Levy regulation 2010; the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document on Affordable Housing and Hampshire County Council 's adopted Transport Contributions Policy (September 2007).

General comments

This application has been brought to the Development Control Committee in line with the scheme of delegation, given the number of objections received and the Officer's recommendation for approval.

This planning application has been amended and supplemented since its original submission as follows;

• Plot 4 orientation amended to enable detached garage to be pushed back from frontage; • Plots 5 and 6 moved away from the eastern boundary; • Minor amendments to plot frontages to allow for more landscaping; • Access amended to allow visibility splays; • Additional supporting information in response to consultations and amended biodiversity information.

Since the receipt of the application a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) has been served on the site covering the trees on the rear boundary and two mature oaks on the front of the site adjacent to Pound Lane.

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Core Planning Principles Section 4 (Promoting Sustainable Transport) Section 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes). Section 7 (Requiring good design). Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment).

78 of 119

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies)

Policy D5 (Residential and Other Development within Settlements) Policy E1 (Development Control). Policy E6 (Landscape Character). Policy C1 (Section 106 Contributions) Policy C2 (Affordable Housing) Policy C3 (Housing Mix) Policy C7 (Community Facilities) Policy C9 (New Leisure Facilities or Open Space) Policy A1 (Car Parking) Policy A2 (Encouraging Walking, Cycling and the Use of Public Transport)

Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance

Residential Parking Standards SPD Appendix 5- Design and Sustainability SPD 'Construction Statements' Appendix 6 - Design and Sustainability SPD 'Storage and Collection of Waste and Recycling' Appendix 16- Design and Sustainability SPD 'Residential Amenity Design Guidance' Housing mix and lifetime mobility standards S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Planning Guidance

Other material documents

The Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport (BEST) Hampshire Transport Contributions Policy - Hampshire County Council Burghclere Village Design Statement National Planning Practice Guidance

Description of Site

The application site is a large roughly rectangular site 0.47 ha in size located on the western side of the village of Burghclere, outside the designated North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site has a sylvan character created by many established trees and shrubs, which are located both along the boundaries of the site. Part of the site is outside the settlement policy boundary (SPB) of Burghclere although currently used as garden to the existing dwelling. The access is within the SPB.

The site currently contains land associated with the existing detached two storey house, which would stay as a separate dwelling as a result of these proposals.

The site boundary is heavily wooded on the north and east boundaries adjacent to The Laurels and Breach Copse, which is outside the SPB. The west of the site is the existing dwelling that fronts Pound Land and to the south are the properties that front Harts Lane.

The character of the area of this part of Burghclere is mixed with older large detached houses set in spacious and well wooded plots, and new developments of smaller houses in smaller plots, but the sylvan character has been retained. Further east along Harts Lane the layout of the village becomes more dense with properties sited closer together and of a more suburban form, but still with generous front gardens.

79 of 119

Grange Cottage, a locally listed property is sited approximately 35m to the south of the nearest proposed dwelling.

Proposal

This is a full planning application that is seeking to erect 6 dwellings within the existing land associated with Sandham House. Sandham House would remain, with a garden and a new garage would be built to service it, as the existing garage would need to be demolished for the proposed house at plot 1. The existing access would remain and would service Sandham House and all the proposed 6 houses. The access comes from Pound Lane and goes around to the rear of Sandham House with plots 1-4 accessed directly from it; plots 4 and 5 have a shared access from it.

The proposal is for 6 dwellings of the following size; • Plot 1 - detached 3 bed with integral garage – 177m² • Plots 2 and 3 - detached 4 bed with integral garage - 245m² • Plot 4 - detached 5 bed with free standing garage - 230m² • Plots 5 and 6 - 2 bed semi-detached pair - 76m²

Sandham House has a second vehicular access to the north of the curtilage that abuts Pound Lane which serves an existing garage, no amendments are proposed to this part of the site and this access and building would remain as within the curtilage of the retained Sandham House.

Consultations

Original Plans

Burghclere Parish Council - The Parish Council STRONGLY OBJECT and have the following concerns and comments to make in respect of the above mentioned application:

1. The site of the new houses sits outside the policy settlement boundary 2. The transport statement makes no mention of the most grave safety concerns of the current bad access from Pound Lane onto Harts Lane (there have been numerous accidents and is known by the residents of Burghclere to be notoriously dangerous and there has been a fatality there), and the chicanes which means that pulling both in and out of Pound Lane is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS 3. The local walks, tourists for Downton Abbey, our thriving local pub and Sandham Memorial Chapel bring many people to the village and due to lack of current parking it is often seen that people park their cars on Harts Lane, Spring Lane, Pound Lane and even between the chicanes (also on Harts Lane). Any additional traffic (construction and future resident) from Pound Lane would therefore also have to navigate these when entering and exiting Pound Lane. 4. The site was not suitable for strategic allocation through the Local Plan and therefore is still not suitable due to the physical constraints of the site 5. There is not enough affordable housing and cheap market housing on this application 6. Housing Policy C3 - doesn't comply with Policy C3 7. The number of proposed dwellings and their sizes on small plot will impact negatively on the character of the village - All the houses along Pound Lane are on large plots and this proposal will therefore lead to more over-urbanisation of the village

80 of 119

8. The new houses will be visible from both Pound Lane and also Harts Lane - due to the deciduous trees and hedges and with the removal of some of the hedging 9. Concerns over the safety of the traffic generated as the increase in traffic will raise by over 50%. Pound lane is only 4m wide with no pavements and is used both by tourists, and walkers (numerous footpaths can be reached) and also tractors use it to access their fields, not to mention horse riders. 10. If built the street scene from the new development would be more in keeping with a town such as Basingstoke, Newbury or Bracknell (sylvanian style of housing) with a lot of hardstanding and dominated by visible parking and overbearing houses. The immediate houses along that stretch of Pound Lane are architecturally pleasing to see. 11. The proposed access road will be wider than the current Pound Lane and therefore dominate the scene and ruin the character of the lane. 12. The historic and cultural importance of Sandham House (formally known as Ash Cottage, and formally Chapel View) cannot be underestimated and the site in its entirety needs to be preserved. The property was built for Sir Stanley Spencer and his family and along with Sandham Memorial Chapel (Grade I listing- National Trust Property) is of economic, historic and cultural importance. The tourists that visit the Chapel often are seen in the village following the footsteps of Stanley Spencer (using the National Trust guide "Walk in Spencer's footsteps around Burghclere") and promote the use of the local pub and services thereby supporting local employment and the local economy. 13. The negative impact on the local residents on Pound Lane, Harts Lane and Laurel Bank by the proposed development was very visible by the communication they provided to the Parish Council meeting and via private talks to the councillors. 14. Grange Cottage (Locally listed building) will be negatively impacted by the proposed development due to the number of houses which are proposed and the scale of them and style which will be visible. 15. The proposed development will have additional noise impact on the neighbours (due to increase in traffic and the increase of household that will be housed there) 16. The site for the proposed development was initially agricultural land and was granted permission for garden use but never with the intention of it being developed (although not relevant on its own, we would like this to be considered when considering that this is outside the Settlement Boundary). 17. The proposed access arrangements (drawing 4988.001) indicates that the hedging belonging to Grange Cottage and on their land will need to be trimmed back for safe visibility from the new access into Pound Lane from the new development. Permission for this has not been granted by the owners of Grange Cottage 18. The proposed access arrangements also show that the existing hedge and vegetation in front of Sandham House will need to be removed and trimmed thus completely altering the feel of the lane. 19. Concern is also raised regarding the possible future access and development of the rest of the Sandham plot as there is another existing gate (drawing Site Photographs and Key - photo 4). 20. No mention has been made of the gate which is frequently used by Grange Cottage (turning right towards Sandham House) by the Local tree warden and volunteer at the Herbert Plantation. The impact by traffic from Sandham and has not been taken into consideration by the traffic surveyors with regard to this. 81 of 119

21. The proposed panel fencing around the site is not in accordance with the Village design statement and will further lead to the over urbanisation of the village. 22. The back of Sandham House is visible from Pound Lane as will the new proposed development be. 23. It is claimed within the design and access statement that Pound Lane is a two lane highway (this is not the case). There are no markings on the road (except at the entrance to Harts Lane where the road is wider), no pavements or verges and is on a very steep embankment (above what was once a railway line)- (Site photographs and key - photos 3 and 5) 24. The development will not contribute socially, economically and to the environmental wellbeing of the village to mitigate allowing building outside of the designated Village Boundary and would additionally change the character of the village. 25. The types of housing being proposed are not what is required for the village 26. The style of the housing is not in keeping (e.g. the plans indicate balconies and glazed linked areas - there are none currently present on Pound or Harts Lane) 27. The design of the houses is viewed as being substandard, and not taking into sufficient consideration the current styles within the village and especially on Pound Lane, and could fit in any town but not a village environment. 28. We believe, that like the development on Laurel Bank and Four Oaks, this garden overdevelopment will lead to an urbanising effect that will be intrusive, reduce tree cover and harm the green leafy character of the area. 29. Density and scale is comparable to Laurel Bank and Four Oaks and will look very cramped especially when compared to the rest of the properties along Pound Lane and Spring Lane. 30. The street scene will be altered dramatically by the removal of hedging, trees and the access road which will be bigger that the main road that it comes off 31. The settlement boundary which was ignored by BDBC for Laurel Bank when mentioned by the Parish Council (has led to the mistaken precedent) which is to the detriment of Burghclere and this can be seen on the accompanying photographs. 32. Residents of Burghclere are also concerned about the impact the development will have on the already failing foul water system which cannot adequately cope. 33. Neighbours and residents are also concerned with regard to the local issues of flooding in respect of surface water drainage 34. The neighbours at the parish council meeting also voiced concerns regarding the style of the houses 35. The neighbours voiced concerns regarding the possibility of separate entrance to the new garage of Sandham house being accessed via a separate access from Pound Lane (see Site Photographs and Key No.4) 36. The neighbours adj. are concerned about the proximity of the Semi- houses to their boundary and the intention of removal/damage to their trees 37. Neighbours are also concerned about the removal of trees and vegetation from the proposed site thus directly impacting on the enjoyment of their leafy surroundings. 38. The additional traffic will further hinder the local farmers when accessing their fields by tractor and vehicles when transporting their cattle etc. to their fields which can only

82 of 119

accessed by Pound Lane. This must be considered as they have continuously provided and continue to provide local employment and benefit our local rural economy and are considered one of the backbones of the rural village community.

In conclusion the adverse impacts of this development would far outweigh any small benefits and should therefore be refused.

Biodiversity - Further information required

Conservation - concern as this urbanisation of the area is harmful to the setting of the locally listed building. The character of the area is semi-rural and verdant with mature trees and hedging at present.

Environmental Health:

Contaminated Land - Given the lack of any potential sources of contamination on or in close proximity to the site we are satisfied that the risks from contamination to future site users has been adequately assessed. Conditions requiring site investigation works and remedial works are therefore not required.

Noise - Satisfied with the noise assessment and the conclusions and therefore do not require any conditions requiring noise mitigation measures.

Waste - Satisfied with the bin collection point shown

Highways - No objection subject to conditions

Landscape - Acceptable with some amendments and conditions

Trees - No objection subject to conditions

Urban Design - No objection to the broad approach of this low density housing scheme. Seek amendments to make the front gardens more landscaped and amendment to layout to move the garage to plot 4.

Environment Agency - This application is deemed to either have a low environmental risk or relate to conditions that were not recommended by the Environment Agency. Unfortunately, due to workload prioritisation we are unable to make an individual response to these applications at this time.

Amended Plans

Trees - More information required

Biodiversity - acceptable with conditions

Landscape - acceptable with conditions

Highways - No change from previous comments

83 of 119

Public Observations

Seven letters – Objection to original plans

Objections in respect of the Principle of Development

• Outside the SPB boundary, put there for a reason and now proposed to ignore it. • Set a difficult precedent, open the village to all manner of development outside the village boundary • Have refused applications in the past for being outside SPB • Not a hard edge to the village but more a wildflower edge • Planning history shows this land was originally agriculture and changed to garden in 1998 (BDB/43859 refers) • Harts Lane had no building outside SPB • National Trust car park is separate to this proposal and was needed due to parking on adjacent roads, does not change the policy boundary • Overdevelopment and urbanisation of the area • Infilling will ruin the character of the village while estate development will overwhelm it

Objections in respect of Highway matters

• One access point for all the houses, average of 2 cars per house and that is 12 new cars using Pound Lane, a single track lane • Junction of Harts Lane and Pound Lane is already a danger • 12 houses already use this junction from Oxdrove and Pound Lane and this development increases that by 50%, which will be intolerable • Adding 12 cars is likely to lead to a serious accident • Lack of parking at Sandham Chapel means that people park in Pound Lane as well as on the railway bridge. The layby opposite the chapel is insufficient • Development will only add to the chaos of the existing junction • Increased traffic generation • should visit the site at 8:30 a.m. on a school morning with 2 schools traffic on Harts Lane • Daily near misses and screeching tyres • Road is falling with continued pot holes from the current level of traffic and under constant repair • Two vehicles can't pass on Pound Lane • Houses will not be of benefit to the village and design is out of keeping • 29 houses in the past 4 years built / being built and they have all had a negative effect on the village character and make it more urbanised and set an unfair precedent

Objections in respect of Residential Amenity

• Overshadowing and loss of privacy. Plan to have a house 1 to 2 m from our fence which will be able to look straight into our garden denying the existing privacy and seclusion we have enjoyed for 40 years. • More houses mean more noise and disturbance, gravel drive is noisy. If approved can I request a paved access as at Laurel Bank which reduces vehicular noise • Small plots not adequate for a family of four • 3rd housing development within 800m of this postcode • Loss of privacy to both sides of Laurel Bank

84 of 119

• Laurel Bank only impacted Southernwood • Noise report on A34 was done in March, no holiday traffic, A34 is noisy but is dependent upon wind

Objections in respect of Trees

• Number of trees that straddle the boundary, if they are cut back on one side then have an impact on stability. • Important oak trees in the area which will be put at risk without protection as new residents can just remove them if they don't want them in their garden. • 150 year old oak tree could be felled and could be retained with some lopping and ivy clearance

Objections in respect of Drainage

• My house (Southernwood House) has been subject to rainwater flooding that naturally flows from Sandham House land during heavy rain. Without major drainage facilities my property will again be subject to flooding as the present drainage measures at my house won't cope with a 6 house development • 6 new dwellings will have a detrimental impact on waste water capacity of Pound Lane • The sewerage system in the village is already under strain from the new additional houses in the last 4 developments, but these new ones may be too much. • Lived here for 40 years and aware of underground natural springs in woods around us and the development. By building houses these may be disturbed which may mean floods in times of heavy rainfall • Underground water course runs from the well at Sandham House, across the land of Grange Cottage emerges where the gravel topsoil gives way to the underlying clay at the verge of Harts Lane. Soakaway on south side of Harts Lane. Also underground watercourses that run under the eastern edge of Grange Cottage. • The proposed development will change the way water flows around and our trees and beds rely on the water. • High water table in area

Objections in respect of Other Matters

• Impact on school capacity • Sandham House was built c.1925 not between 1956 – 1970

2 letters – Objection, were received to the submitted amended plans

• Site is outside the SPB, I have pursued applications which have been refused solely on being outside the SPB. • If approved then council is open to a charge of double standards and legal challenge • Need more clarification on drainage, during heavy rain the field at Sandham hose drains through my property and I have gone to the expense of implementing drainage systems to cope. • More housing is a major concern as my drainage system is insufficient to accept more rain water which can be expected to drain from the concrete platforms associated with the development. • Objection is based on the access, entrance is not wide enough and increased traffic is dangerous to users of Pound Lane.

85 of 119

• Have had an accident on Pound Lane with a vehicle exiting Sandham House • Spate of accidents over the years • Application for houses on Breech Copse was rejected by the council due to access and traffic flow on Pound Lane / Harts Lane • This application is an about turn on access and safety.

Relevant Planning History

The application was submitted using the garden of Sandham House. From an examination of the planning history it would appear that the land is not part of the curtilage of the property. In 1998 the land formed an agricultural paddock in the same ownership. This may explain the SPB line which appears to include the extent of the original domestic curtilage only.

However from the site visit it is apparent that the land, although not curtilage, is being used in association with the residential use of the house. The land is landscaped as garden and has structures erected within it that appear to have been in place for some time. As such, the applicant was requested to provide more detail on the use of the land as residential garden as opposed to paddock. In response family photographs, invoices for a summer house on the land and the sales brochure for the house were submitted which demonstrated that the land has been used as residential for some time. The information provided is not sufficient for the purpose of demonstrating a lawful use of the land as domestic curtilage but it does demonstrate that the enclosure and use is not a new event.

BDB/43859 Demolition of extension and erection of Granted 13.11.98 replacement extension and change of use of part of adjoining paddock to domestic garden area.

Assessment

Principle of development

The proposal seeks to obtain permission to build 6 dwellings in the countryside. The access to the site is within the Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) but the area for the proposed houses lies outside of the SPB defined in the Adopted Local Plan (ALP), and is therefore considered to lie in the countryside.

The Council has a serious and significant 5 year housing land supply shortage. In these circumstances relevant policies for the supply of housing (which includes Saved Policy D5) should not be considered up-to-date according to paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF). Where policies are out of date paragraph 14 of the NPPF advises that:

“At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision- taking......

For decision-taking this means: • approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and • where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date,

86 of 119

granting planning permission unless: • any adverse impacts of doing so would be significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or • specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.”

The development site is mostly outside the SPB identified by Saved Policy D5, therefore, as this is a housing delivery policy it is considered to be out of date given the lack of the 5 year housing land supply. Therefore the NPPF takes precedent over the adopted local plan in relation to the supply of housing and the questions that need to be answered are;

• Is the proposed development sustainable development? • Do the adverse impacts of the development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits?

Sustainable Development

The NPPF states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and Local Planning Authorities are encouraged to approach decision-taking in a positive way in order to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The three dimensions to achieving sustainable development are defined in the NPPF as: economic, social and environmental.

Under the Core Planning Principles of the NPPF, it is stated that planning should proactively drive and support sustainable development to deliver the homes and thriving places that the country needs. Every effort should be made to objectively identify and then meet the housing and development needs of an area and respond positively to the wider opportunities for growth. The core principles also focus on delivering high quality design, recognising the different roles and characters of different areas, conserving the natural environment and heritage assets, and actively managing patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and focusing significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.

• Economic Sustainability

This is not an application for economic development; however, the construction phase would create a number of jobs and once occupied the residents would be potential employees for businesses in the area. These residents would be consumers in the local economy. It is acknowledged that in this regard the opportunities for employment within the immediately adjoining area are limited.

• Social Sustainability

The proposal is for dwellings which would provide housing for residents; which constitutes an element of social sustainability. This includes provision for affordable housing in accordance with Saved Local Plan Policy C2 and the Affordable Housing SPD (July 2007) which set out the council’s affordable housing requirements from new developments in the Borough.

The policy states that the level of affordable housing provision may vary depending on the specifics of the site, however the Council's intended starting point for negotiations will be 40% and that within settlements where the population is fewer than 3,000 outside of Basingstoke Town area, the minimum threshold is 7 dwellings or 0.2ha. The site exceeds

87 of 119 the size threshold and would therefore trigger the requirement for the provision of affordable housing, the starting point for which would be 40%, equating to two units.

The applicant has offered to provide the full 40% on site which meets the policy requirement of Saved Policy C2. This will be secured via a legal agreement. The tenure of the affordable housing (i.e. rent or shared ownership) will be secured through the legal agreement.

Saved Policy C3 of the Local Plan requires a housing mix for the market dwellings to be provided on the site with 30-50% of dwellings required to be small units (1 or 2 bedrooms). The Council Housing Mix SPD states that in this location at least 30% of the proposed dwellings should be small units.

The proposed development would provide two small units (two 2 bedroom dwellings with a floorspace of 75m²) and 4 detached houses; 1 x 3bed, 2 x 4 bed and 1 x 5 bed. 33.3% of dwellings are proposed to be ‘small units’. This is between the 30% and 50% range indicated within Saved policy C3.

However, two of the units will be affordable units, and therefore if these are the two smaller units, which would meet the stated housing need identified by the Housing Officer then the remainder of the units (the open market units) would not meet the housing mix policy.

The Revised Pre-submission Local Plan contains a draft housing mix policy (Policy CN3) that is based on the latest evidence (including the recently published Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)) and provides flexibility for developers to provide a mix of market housing. It does not include a percentage of dwellings to be smaller units and states that development proposals will be required to provide evidence, proportionate to the scale of development proposed, to justify the mix of housing proposed. Whilst the policy has very limited weight, the most up to date evidence base (which demonstrates the need for more flexibility) is relevant.

In this instance due to the character of the area, which comprises larger plots on the older established development plots and some smaller dwellings on the newer schemes and the provision of on-site affordable houses in a village location and the lack of a 5 year housing land supply, it is considered that on balance the non-compliance with Saved Policy C3 is not an overriding reason to reject the proposal.

• Environmental Sustainability

The council's Highways team have stated that 'When evaluating the site in accordance with the local plan and the NPPF, the Highway Authority would consider the overall assessment as being 'Not Sustainable' when measured in terms of sustainable transport modes. It is felt that due to the sites location the site has limited accessibility by a choice of transport means which is why it is considered to be categorised as such. This conclusion is agreed.

In general, walking within the local area would be unlikely due to the sites location, the entrance emerging onto Pound Lane, which is a narrow unlit road with no pedestrian footways. Pound lane is restricted to a 30 mph speed limit.

Bus services offer opportunities for mode transfer with destinations for retail, employment, health and tertiary education; given some flexibility in personal time allowances, recognising that journeys are longer and timetable driven. Nevertheless, due to the

88 of 119 location of the site the available bus services are very limited, and as mentioned previously walking to the bus stops would be difficult. The nearest bus stop is on Harts Lane, approximately 300 metres from the site entrance, from where the service 7A operates, connecting Newbury and Andover, three times per day Monday to Saturdays. There is no service on Sundays or public holidays.

However, on road cycling would also be feasible over other modes particularly for the experienced cyclist.

Another key aspect of considering environmental sustainability is the visual impact of the development on the character of the area and surrounding environs. This is discussed in more detail below.

Impact on the character of the area/ design

The edges of the site are very heavily wooded at present which contributes to the wider sylvan character of this part of the village. The trees on the boundary between this site and The Laurels has had a TPO served on it, as well as 2 mature oaks on the frontage with Pound Lane. The interior of the site is laid to lawn, the closer environs of the existing dwelling is more landscaped as a domestic garden. With the dismantled railway opposite the site, Pound Lane has a quiet sylvan character with buildings spaced out with landscaping at the front and between plots.

The site is located within the countryside and the NPPF seeks us to protect the intrinsic value of the countryside. The character of the existing site is enclosed with development surrounding all but part of the boundary that is adjacent to breech copse, the significant tree planting on this boundary prevents views into and from the site. Therefore although classified as countryside the character of the site is established as an enclosed area (by dwellings and trees) and not a significant part of the open countryside.

The Burghclere Village Design Statement October 2002 (VDS) states that 'New development should be individual dwellings or small groups. They should be of a scale in keeping with the village and surrounding settlements. Any development should include a variety of house sizes and reflect the need for smaller houses for sale or rent. New buildings should generally be single or two storey incorporating interesting and sympathetic architectural details and features, using materials appropriate to the locality. The scale and proportion of new buildings and extensions should harmonise with neighbouring properties, retain a spacious feel between nearby dwellings and relate to the landscape settings.'

In respect of maintaining the rural character of the area, the Village Design Statement particularly notes that it is not only the open aspects within the village that create the character, but also areas which achieve a degree of seclusion and identity due to mature trees of mainly indigenous species. Sandham House is noted as a 'property with open space' on the Village Design Statement map, although not all the application site is identified as the part outside the SPB is excluded. The trees and landscape characteristics of the site are therefore important features in retaining the rural character of the village. The adjoining properties of Laurel Bank and Four Oaks were also identified on this map.

The layout of the scheme and the density is more spacious than the new development at The Laurels and more reflective of the plots sizes on the development at Four Oaks. The plot sizes are smaller than the more detached older established plots which adjoin the site

89 of 119 but this in itself is not a reason to object to the proposal. The layout does provide for larger plots with spaces between the dwellings and good sized rear gardens. The amended plans allow for more landscaping with the front garden areas and with landscaping conditions to secure planting the resultant scheme would integrate with the existing development

The proposed buildings on the site have been designed to reflect the character of the existing property and are designed as two storey houses in a traditional design using gable features, bays, hanging tiles and brick plinths. There is some variation in design between the properties, however the detail provides for a cohesive scheme and pleasing street scene with gaps between the dwellings allowing views through to the trees on the boundaries of the site. The urban design officer has stated that 'I have no objection to the proposed elevations which take a cue from the local vernacular character.' Conditions can secure samples of the materials to be provided which will ensure that the quality and mix of the materials supports the design.

The Council's Landscape Officer has not objected to the proposal, but did seek some minor amendments to the scheme to include more landscaping in the proposed front gardens, which the amended plans provided. Therefore subject to conditions to secure hard and soft landscaping they consider the scheme acceptable, subject to the comments of the Tree officer.

Since the application was received a TPO has been served to protect the existing trees on the site. These provided a screening between the proposed development and the existing properties at Laurel Bank, it is not easy to see these properties from the site at present due to this tree screen. These trees would remain as the boundary between the rear gardens of the proposed dwellings (plots 1-4) and the front of the properties on Laurel Bank, the TPO will ensure their long-term retention. The TPO extends around the trees that will form the rear boundary between the back gardens of plots 5 and 6 and part of plot 4 and Breach Copse, again providing a screen for the development between it and the countryside beyond.

It is considered that the enclosed nature of the site, the density and design of the dwellings and the retention / improvement of the landscaping the application would be acceptable in landscape and character impacts.

Impact on neighbouring amenities

Given the low density sylvan character of the area, the nearby residential properties enjoy a level of peace and privacy, although the A34 does provide a background noise intrusion.

The rear of proposed plots 1-4 will face towards properties within The Laurels. However as discussed above, the TPO tree belt will obscure any direct clear views, with the TPO will ensuring this protection to amenity is retained in perpetuity. In addition the new dwellings would be facing the front of the properties with The Laurels, which although is a private cul de sac is the public face of these properties and this relationship is acceptable.

Plot 1 is located to the rear of Southernwood House and Grange Cottage which front Harts Lane and is orientated to sit parallel to the boundary. The design of the dwelling is such that there are no windows proposed on the side elevation facing towards these properties and as the building is located to the north of the respective curtilages there would be no overshadowing. The existing gardens to these dwellings are generous and the open character of the area means that the new building would not be an overbearing presence

90 of 119 on them. The staggered design of plot 1 means that there is only one bedroom (serviced by rear and front facing dormers) that may provide oblique views across adjoining rear gardens. The oblique angle of these views avoids the most private spaces (close to the property). In addition there is existing retained and new planting proposed on the access drive that would further mitigate any views. The relationship is considered acceptable.

Plot 6 (semi-detached) is adjacent to the boundary with Heath House and there are a number of trees existing in this location and a large tree within the grounds of Heath House. The side elevation of plot 6 faces the boundary and the design of the building is reduced at this point, being lower and narrower than the remaining building, reducing the mass of the building close to the boundary. No windows are proposed in the side elevation and there are only two first floor rear facing windows in total for plots 5 and 6 serving bedrooms which are located centrally on the plot away from the boundary. The building is proposed to the east of Heath House and so there would be no significant overshadowing. It is considered that the design and orientation of plots 5 and 6 result in an acceptable relationship between the existing and proposed dwellings.

There has been a request from neighbours that, if approved, the new drive be surfaced in a solid material as gravel is noisy, particularly with the intensified use proposed by the dwellings, likely to be disturbing . It has been requested that a solid drive material be used. This is considered a reasonable request and would also assist new residents as the bin collection point is adjacent to Pound Lane which would be difficult to use if crossing gravel. This can be secured by condition.

Highways

The site is situated within a ‘rural’ area for the purposes of assessing NPPF Sustainable Transport Modes and the provision of residential motor vehicle and secure cycle parking provision, plus refuse/recycling facilities.

Pound Lane is an unclassified road forming a residential cul-de-sac and is within the 30mph speed limit area. There are no specific pedestrian or cyclist facilities and no street lighting. Pound Lane has a junction with Harts Lane south of the development site that is formed at a shallow s-bend within Harts Lane, consequently emerging traffic from Pound Lane has limited visibility sightlines. Harts Lane is also within the 30mph speed limit, it has a footway along its southern kerb line but no street lighting.

The Applicant has submitted a Transport Statement (TS) in support of the application, which includes a speed and volume data for Pound Lane, and assesses the requirements for visibility sightlines at the development site access, together with plan characteristics for the altered means of access to the site and a five year road traffic incident analysis for the Pound Lane junction with Harts Lane. Provided that the revised means of access to the site are configured in accordance with the recommendations of the TS, the TS concludes that 'there should be no highway objection to the proposed revised application.' The Highway Officer confirms that “While it is reasonable to agree with the findings and conclusion of the TS, the architect’s drawings [ARK Drawing DP.200B] do not show the full extent of the required visibility sightlines at the site access junction with Pound Lane”. The amended plans have addressed this concern. It is considered that the proposal will not result in harm to the free flow and safe movement of vehicles on the highway network. The Highway Officer has raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.

With the exception of the two 2 bed dwellings (Plots 5 & 6) motor vehicle parking is provided as per the expectations of the residential parking standards for a rural area. No

91 of 119 formal visitor spaces are shown but the highway officer considers that scope does exist for visitors elsewhere within the development. All the double garages meet and or exceed both the minimum internal dimensions of 6m by 6m and horizontal garage doors have a clear opening width of 2.3m or 5m. It is noted that Plot 4 has its pedestrian access door opening into the garage space thus reducing useable space for parking and storage, however this can be rehung to open outwards and this requirement can be secured by condition.

Secure cycle parking would be within garages except for Plots 5 & 6, which will require additional rear garden sheds, which is secured by condition.

Waste container storage will be at each dwelling, while a single collection point is proposed near Pound Lane. As such future residents will have to transit their waste containers a considerable distance over a permeable surface to reach it. The collection point and the final detail of its layout, etc. will be considered within the discharge of the ‘Means of Access and Stopping’ up which will be secured by condition. The waste collection team have confirmed that they are happy with the bin collection point.

The conditions proposed by the Highway officer relate to those matters listed above and sit in conjunction with conditions to secure a Construction Method statement, details of means of access, visibility splays and stopping up. All these conditions are considered necessary and relevant to securing an acceptable development.

Drainage

A number of the letters of objection related to local flooding issues experienced in the past to underground springs. This issue was raised with the applicant and also the Drainage Team who confirmed that, although the site is within Flood Zone 1, and is therefore suitable for development, given the local knowledge and concerns further information is required to ensure that any proposed drainage conditions would be appropriate on the site.

Additional information was provided and as a result the drainage team have confirmed that with the provision of conditions relating to drainage no objection is raised. This conclusion is agreed.

Section 106 agreement - need and compliance with statutory tests

Following the scoping of the application, contributions towards local infrastructure improvements and community facilities (including affordable housing, landscape management plan, open space and play and recreation) are required to mitigate the impacts of development and to ensure adequate provision exists to meet the needs of users of the development in the locality, in line with current local and national policy.

The Council's Interim Planning Guidance Note 'S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure', and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 address planning obligations in the context of a development. The CIL regulations in particular, now make it unlawful if the obligation sought does not meet the following three tests:

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms (b) directly related to the development, and; (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

At this time there is no completed legal agreement but the applicant has agreed to the

92 of 119 heads of terms and thus the recommendation is subject to the completion of the S106.

Other matters

- Biodiversity

The updated ecological report covers all of the aspects required and provides enough detail upon which to place a condition, the adoption of the reasonable avoidance measures noted in the report will minimise the potential for harm to protected and priority species. The enhancement measures including bat access features are welcomed, but will require an appropriate external lighting scheme that will maximise the potential for them being successfully utilised, the woodland strip also forms good potential foraging habitat for bats (and potentially other nocturnal wildlife) and it is therefore important that a sensitive lighting scheme is developed that will maintain this strip as a dark corridor.

Therefore subject to conditions relating to wildlife protection and mitigation measures and lighting design the scheme is considered acceptable in biodiversity terms and complies with Saved Policy E7.

- Local Listing

Grange Cottage is a locally listed property located to the south of the site and is locally significant as a largely intact example of an 18th Century dwelling. Whilst not statutorily designated/protected, this constitutes a non-designated heritage asset for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Grange Cottage is located to the south of the site. Given the separation distance between Grange Cottage and the proposed development (nearest is approximately 35 metres distant), with vegetation intervening, and the presence of existing dwellings in the area, it is considered that the proposal would not result in harm to the setting of the non- designated heritage asset.

Balance and Conclusion

The proposal is for the erection of 6 dwellings on a site that is part within the SPB and part in the countryside on a site that is considered not sustainable by the transport team.

In making a balanced decision, consideration does need to be given to the lack of a 5 year housing land supply. In this respect paragraph 14 of the NPPF is of particular relevance which advises that in decision-taking, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of approving development would be so significant and demonstrable as to outweigh the benefits of doing so, or that specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.

In this case as demonstrated in the report above the impacts of the development are not considered to be significant when weighed against the benefits of the scheme, most notably the provision of six dwellings, two of which would be affordable. It is considered that in this case the adverse impacts would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in relation to the Borough's land supply situation. Furthermore, the proposal gives rise to no adverse harm to highway safety, residential amenity or the natural environment (i.e. trees/biodiversity). Therefore in line with the NPPF and the Development Plan for the area the proposal is, on balance, considered to be acceptable.

93 of 119

Conditions

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:

Site Layout and Location Plan DP.200C received 26 August 2015 Sandham House – Replacement garage and store DP.207 received 30 June 2015 Plot 1 – Plans and Elevations DP.203A received 30 June 2015 Plots 2 and 3 – Plans and Elevations DP204 received 30 June 2015 Plot 4 – Plans and Elevations DP204A received 26 August 2015 Plot 4 Garage – Plans and Elevations DP.206A received 26 August 2015 Plots 5 and 6 – Plans and Elevations DP 202 received 30 June 2015 Roof Plan and Site Sectional Elevations DP.201D received 14 October 2015

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this planning permission. REASON: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

3 No development shall commence on site until a schedule of materials and finishes, including samples, to be used for the external walls and roofs of the proposed buildings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Information is required prior to commencement of development as insufficient information was provided and in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

4 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping which shall specify species, planting sizes, spacing and numbers of trees/shrubs to be planted (including replacement trees where appropriate). The works approved shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation of the buildings. In addition, a maintenance programme detailing all operations to be carried out in order to allow successful establishment of planting, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Information is required prior to commencement of development as insufficient information was provided and to improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Saved Policies E1 (ii) and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

5 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of screen walls/fences/hedges to be erected. The approved

94 of 119

screen walls/fences shall be erected before the dwellings hereby approved are first occupied and shall subsequently be maintained. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, details of which shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before replacement occurs. REASON: Information is required prior to commencement of development as insufficient information was provided and in the interests of the privacy of the occupiers of adjoining residential properties and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

6 No development shall commence on site until details of the materials to be used for hard and paved surfacing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved surfacing shall be completed before the adjoining buildings are first occupied and thereafter maintained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Information is required prior to commencement of development as insufficient information was provided and in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

7 No works shall take place on site until a measured survey of the site has been undertaken and a plan prepared to a scale of not less than 1:500 showing details of existing and intended final ground levels and finished floor levels in relation to a nearby datum point which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Information is required prior to commencement of development as insufficient information was provided and to protect the privacy of the occupiers of adjoining properties and the character of the area in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

8 All wildlife protection and mitigation measures shall be carried out in accordance with the Biodiversity Survey Assessment submitted by Lowans Ecology dated April 2015 and updated August 2015. This includes the installation of bat access features and reasonable avoidance measures for minimising the potential for harm to protected and priority species. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved report, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: The National Planning Policy Framework requires that there are net gains in biodiversity in order to help compensate for habitat loss resulting from the development and help to maintain the biodiversity of the area in the long term, in accordance with Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

9 Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, details of any proposed external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: The site contains suitable bat foraging habitat and bat access features are proposed. High level lighting within the vicinity of the tree belt or bat access features

95 of 119

could have the potential to disturb bats All bat species are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and are a material consideration under Policy E7.

10 No work relating to the construction of the development hereby approved, including works of demolition or preparation prior to operations, or fitting out, shall take place before the hours of 0730 nor after 1800 Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays nor on Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

11 No deliveries of construction materials or plant and machinery and no removal of any spoil from the site shall take place before the hours of 0730 nor after 1800 Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays nor on Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

12 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement that demonstrates safe and coordinated systems of work affecting or likely to affect the public highway and or all motorised and or non- motorised highway users, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

The Statement shall include for: i. compliance with The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 and in particular Part 3 Regulation 8 General duties, whereby construction must be undertaken 'in a manner that secures the health and safety of any person affected by the project.' ii. means of access (temporary or permanent) to the site from the adjoining maintainable public highway; iii. the parking and turning of vehicles of site operatives and visitors off carriageway (all to be established within one week of the commencement of development); iv. loading and unloading of plant and materials away from the maintainable public highway; v. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development away from the maintainable public highway; vi. wheel washing facilities or an explanation why they are not necessary; vii. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; viii. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; ix. a scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and x. the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway, particularly during the Monday to Friday AM peak (08.00 to 09.00) and PM peak (16.30 to 18.00) periods.

96 of 119

xi. the routes to be used by construction traffic to access and egress the site so as to avoid undue interference with the safety and operation of the public highway and adjacent roads, including construction traffic holding areas both on and off the site as necessary.

REASON: Information is required prior to commencement of development as insufficient information was provided and to ensure that the construction process is undertaken in a safe and convenient manner that limits impact on local roads and the amenities of nearby occupiers, the area generally and in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

13 No development shall take place on site until details of the method of construction of the altered means of access to the premises [Stuart Michael Associates Drawing 4988.001] minimum width 5.5m for the first 10m from carriageway edge of Pound Lane, including materials and finishes, refuse/recycling collection point, visibility sightlines, gradient (maximum 1:12 (8%)), and surface-water drainage details that prevents surface water run-off from the site entering the public highway, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved access details shall be constructed and fully implemented before the development hereby approved is occupied or the use commence, whichever is the sooner and shall be thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Information is required prior to commencement of development as insufficient information was provided and to ensure that a satisfactory means of access to the highway is constructed before the approved development is operational in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

14 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) fences or other means of enclosure along the frontage of the site with the adjoining highway of Pound Lane shall be set back to ensure unobstructed visibility sightlines of 2.4m by 33m at the junction of the site access with the public highway. These sightlines shall thereafter be permanently kept free of obstacles more than 0.6m above the level of the adjacent carriageway. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

15 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no works shall take place on-site until details of the means of closure (stopping up) of the existing access have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved closure (stopping up) of the existing access shall be fully implemented immediately after completion of the new access and prior to the commencement of the use or occupation of the building(s) whichever is the sooner, and shall be thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Information is required prior to commencement of development as insufficient information was provided and in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

97 of 119

16 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or the approved use commence, whichever is the sooner, until refuse and recycling storage (prior to disposal) to each dwelling plus a collection point [capacity for 14 Nos 240ltr 2- wheeled containers and 7 Nos Glass boxes] and transit route to and from the public highway, not more than 15m carrying distance from a highway which is a carriageway [ARK Drawing DP.200B], have been provided within the curtilage of the site, and the areas of land so provided shall not be used for any purposes other than the storage (prior to disposal) or the collection of refuse and recycling and shall be thereafter retained and maintained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details of these arrangements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. REASON: In the interests of general amenity, to ensure convenience of arrangements for refuse and recycling storage and collection and to ensure that no obstruction is caused on the adjoining highway, in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

17 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or the use commence, whichever is the sooner, until Sandham House and Plots 1 to 4 have provision for turning (enter, turn and leave in a forward gear), manoeuvring, loading and unloading of vehicles and the parking of 4 vehicles and secure bicycle parking for 2 long and 1 short stay places, together with unobstructed pedestrian access (minimum width 0.9m) to the primary entrance of the property, have been made within the curtilage of the properties and the areas of land so provided shall be thereafter retained and maintained and shall not be used for any purposes other than the turning, manoeuvring, loading and unloading and parking of vehicles and bicycles, and access for pedestrians, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policies E1, A1 and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

18 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or the use commence, whichever is the sooner, until Plots 5 and 6 have provision for turning (enter, turn and leave in a forward gear), manoeuvring, loading and unloading of vehicles and the parking of 2 vehicles, together with unobstructed pedestrian access (minimum width 0.9m) to the primary entrance of the property, have been made within the curtilage of the properties and the areas of land so provided shall be thereafter retained and maintained and shall not be used for any purposes other than the turning, manoeuvring, loading and unloading and parking of vehicles and bicycles, and access for pedestrians, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policies E1, A1 and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

19 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or the approved use commence, whichever is the sooner, until Plots 5 and 6 have secure cycle parking facilities for 2 long and 1 short stay places and transit route to and from the public highway, provided in accordance with detailed drawings to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, such drawings to show the position, design, materials and finishes thereof. The approved secure cycle storage

98 of 119

shall be constructed and fully implemented before occupation or the approved use commences, whichever is the sooner, and thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To improve provision for cyclists and discourage the use of the private car wherever possible and in accordance with Saved Policy A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

20 Prior to the commencement of development details of the proposed drainage system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage system shall be constructed in accordance with a programme of works that shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Information is required prior to the commencement of development as insufficient information was provided and in the interest of residential amenity and to prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Saved Policy E8 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

21 Development shall not commence until a drainage strategy including on and off-site works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Information is required prior to the commencement of development as insufficient information was provided and to ensure a satisfactory development in accordance with Saved Policy E8 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

Informative(s):-

1. 1.1 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied within full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.

1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre-commencement conditions have been met.

1.3 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £97 per request or £28 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly

99 of 119

identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.

2. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and proactive manner:-

 offering a pre-application advice,  seeking further information following receipt of the application,  seeking amendments to the proposed development following receipt of the application,  considering the imposition of conditions and or the completion of a s.106 legal agreement.

In this instance:

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

In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

3. This Decision Notice must be read in conjunction with a Planning Obligation completed under the terms of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). You are advised to satisfy yourself that you have all the relevant documentation.

4. With respect to the Means of Access Condition consent under the Town and Country Planning Acts must not be taken as approval for any works carried out within or project under or project over any footway, including a Public Right of Way, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the publically maintained highway. The development will involve works within the public highway. It is an offence to commence those works without the permission of the Local Highway Authority, Hampshire County Council. In the interests of highway safety the development must not commence on-site until permission has been obtained from the Local Highway Authority authorising any necessary works, including street lighting and surface water drainage, within the publically maintained highway. Public Utility apparatus may also be affected by the development. Contact the appropriate public utility service to ensure agreement on any necessary alterations.

Advice about works within the public highway can be obtained from Hampshire County Council's Area Office, telephone 0300 555 1388.

5. Environment Agency Informative: The applicant should contact 08708 506 506 or consult our website to establish if consent will be required for the works they are proposing. Please see https://www.gov.uk/environmental-permit-how-to- apply/overview. Any works in, over, under, or within 8m of the top of the bank of a designated Main River will also require our formal consent. Please contact 08708 506 506 to find out more information about Flood Defence Consents.

100 of 119

15/02236/FUL

Location Plan

101 of 119

15/02236/FUL

Site Layout Plan

102 of 119

15/02236/FUL

Street Scene

103 of 119

15/02236/FUL

Site Cross-Section BB – West/East

104 of 119

Minor Application

Cttee: 2 December Item No. 4 2015

Application no: 15/03324/FUL For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Berrydown Green Lane Stratfield Saye Hampshire Proposal Erection of dwelling and detached garage with associated parking

Registered: 18 September 2015 Expiry Date: 10 December 2015 Type of Full Planning Case Officer: Rob Sims Application: Application 01256 845304 Applicant: Mr & Mrs G. Toosey Agent: Kate Bayley Ward: Pamber And Ward Member(s): Cllr Marilyn Tucker Silchester Cllr Roger Gardiner

Parish: STRATFIELD SAYE OS Grid Reference: 468029 161818 CP

Recommendation: the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal

1 The proposal is for the erection of a new dwelling within the countryside, in an unsustainable and isolated location, for which there are no exceptional circumstances. As such the proposal would be contrary to Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and the principles of Saved Policies D6 and D9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 -2011.

2 The proposed development is considered to constitute an overdevelopment of the site, and as a result of its inappropriate size, scale and design, the new dwelling would be out of character and scale with the immediate area, and inappropriate for the rural context, and would lead to an unsympathetic expansion of built form into the countryside. As such the proposal would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and Appendix 14:`Countryside Design Summary` of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document.

3 In the absence of any suitable legal agreement, or justification for the absence of a legal agreement, the proposed development does not make adequate provision for community and infrastructure provision in relation to Open Space and Play provision to adequately off-set the impact of the development. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, Saved Policies C1 and C9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the guidance contained within the Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Guidance Document and the Adopted Green Space Standards.

General Comments This application is brought to the Development Control Committee at the request of Cllr Tucker and Cllr Gardiner for the following reasons: 105 of 119

Cllr Tucker: 'Stratfield Saye does not have a core. However, this site is just along the road, and within walking distance, from the old village school (converted to residential), The Iron Duke pub, the recreation field and pavilion, and the village hall. The bus from Berkshire travels along The Street past the Village Hall.

If the site were a conversion into residential it would be likely to be recommended for approval but the site is full of elderly buildings etc. the clearance of which would be welcomed locally. Whilst this is not a normal reason to approve an application it would certainly have a good result. The design has been criticised as being rather large for the plot but that is not everyone's view. We would therefore like the application to go to committee and be viewed.'

Cllr Gardiner: ‘I endorse the comments from Cllr Tucker.

Planning Policy

The site lies outside of any settlement policy boundary and is therefore considered to lie in a countryside location.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7: Requiring Good Design Section 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment Annex A: Decision Taking

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies)

Policy D6 (Residential Accommodation in the countryside) Policy E1 (Development Control) Policy E2 (Buildings of Architectural or Historic Interest) Policy E6 (Landscape Character) Policy A1 (Car Parking) Policy A2 (Encouraging Walking, Cycling and the Use of Public Transport) Policy C1 (Section 106 Agreements)

Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance

Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document; Appendix 5 - Construction Statements, Appendix 14 - Countryside Design Summary; Appendix 16 - Residential Amenity Design Guidance

Description of Site

The development site comprises of a 0.077ha parcel of land located to the east of the existing dwelling Berrydown. The site comprises of 3 existing buildings currently used for storage of domestic goods, however the site does not have a lawful residential use. These buildings are single-storey constructed of timber cladding and profile sheeted roofs. There is an existing vehicular access located to the west of the buildings providing access to Green Lane. The site is separated from the agricultural land to the south by a drainage ditch, as are the other residential dwellings to the west.

106 of 119

Proposal

The proposal is for the erection of a 4 bedroom dwelling and detached double garage, which utilises the existing vehicular access and extends the hardstanding area. The new dwelling would be two storeys in height and would comprise of a central two storey element that fronts the road with pitched roof dormers above the eaves and a central porch. The rear elevation would comprise of a two-storey gabled projection with a rear balcony and pitched roof dormers in each side elevation and a rear dormer in the main rear elevation. The eastern elevation would comprise of a single-storey side projection with full length glazing up to the apex. The western elevation would also comprise of a single storey side projection and porch. The new dwelling would measure 23.2m wide (including the single-storey side projection) x 12.5m deep (including the two storey rear projection) x 8.0m high.

Consultations

Cllr M Tucker - As above

Cllr R Gardiner - As above

Pamber Parish Council - the Parish Council met on the 15th October to discuss this planning application and while they have no specific objections to raise they do have comments to make which they would like you to take into account when making your decision.

1. They were unsure of the status of the plot, whether it was classified as agricultural or residential as the area where the proposed house would be built was gained by 'adverse possession' many years ago and has been used for keeping horses at livery. Please let me know how the land is classified. As far as the Council is aware it is not classified as a brownfield site. 2. They expressed concern that the house was too large for the plot and looked cramped. 3. There are some important errors in the documents with the application: the plot size is stated as 0.775 ha when in fact it is only 0.0775ha

The applications states plot is on main sewage when it is not - all neighbouring properties having cesspits.

The documents refer to incorrect bus provision being available in Stratfield Saye. There are no public bus services running through the village as stated, all that is available is a coach once a week to Reading leaving the village at 9.00am and returning 2 hours later.

Environmental Health - No objection, subject to conditions

Highways - No objection, subject to conditions

Landscape Officer - No objection subject to conditions

Biodiversity Officer – No objection subject to informative

107 of 119

Public Observations

Seven letters of support have been received for the application

- The existing mixture of buildings look messy and very run-down and are an eyesore. The design of the proposed dwelling, and the landscaping would fit very well within the rural setting and would have a positive impact on the surrounding areas. - New dwelling modest and appropriate addition to the other houses along Green Lane.

Relevant Planning History

BDB/41637 Erection of single storey rear extension GTD 14.08.97

BDB/23834 Formation of self-contained flat & attached GTD 27.01.88 conservatory

BDB/22917 Formation of self-contained flat & attached REF 26.08.87 conservatory

BDB/06050 Change of use from stables to cattery GTD 24.07.78

Assessment

The earliest planning record the Council holds for the application site was for the change of use of the stables to a cattery. This application was approved under application BDB/06050 on 24/07/78. The other applications relate to the existing dwelling and various extensions.

Principle of Development

The site is situated outside of any defined Settlement Policy Boundary, under Saved Policy D5 of the Adopted Local Plan and is therefore considered to be within the countryside where the principle of development is more restricted. As the proposed residential development falls within the countryside, Saved Local Plan Policy D6 applies.

On 21 June 2012, a paper went to Planning and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee which included a review of saved Local Plan policies in terms of their consistency with the NPPF. This agrees that saved Policies D5 and D6 should be continued to be used, as they are generally in conformity with the NPPF.

Saved Policy D6 restricts new homes in the countryside, only permitting new residential development in the countryside where it is a 'one for one replacement of an existing dwelling' (i) or 'results from the conversion of an existing building' (ii). The only other circumstances where it may be acceptable for new homes in the countryside, according to Saved Policy D6, is where it 'involves residential development on sites which comply with Saved Policies D8 or D9' (iii) where they are rural exception sites (e.g. for affordable housing, community facilities etc) or rural brownfield sites.

With respect to Saved Policy D6, this proposal is for a new-build dwelling rather than a replacement dwelling or conversion of an existing building, and therefore does not comply

108 of 119 with criteria (i) and (ii) of Saved Policy D6. With respect to criteria (iii) of Saved Policy D6, the site does involve the development of a site which could be considered to be a brownfield site under Saved Policy D9 of the BDBLP.

Saved Policy D9 relates to proposals on brownfield sites in sustainable locations outside the Settlement Policy Boundaries for the development of employment, tourism uses, local facilities or housing, which will only be permitted where they otherwise comply with relevant policies of the Local Plan. It goes onto state that for residential proposals, opportunities to include a mix of uses on the site, including employment must be fully explored. In this instance, whilst paragraph 17 of the NPPF encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided it is not of high environmental value, the site is not considered to be located within a sustainable location and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate alternative uses, including tourism and mixed employment uses have been considered before, although it is acknowledged that the NPPF is less onerous in this respect. In addition, the character of the existing site is distinctly rural with the low level stable buildings being part of the intrinsic character of this part of the countryside, which paragraph 17 also states should be taken into account in decision-taking.

However in circumstances where development proposes new dwellings and the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, paragraph 49 of the NPPF is applicable, which states that in such circumstances: that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date. Therefore saved policies D5 and D6 of the Local Plan are considered to be 'out-of-date' for the purposes of assessing this application.

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF also sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable Development. 'For decision taking this means that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: (i) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; or (ii) specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.'

Such policies under the NPPF include consideration on whether the development is sustainable and the social, environmental and economic impacts of the development.

It is acknowledged that housing development will assist in boosting the housing market and contributing to the economy of the Borough, both directly and indirectly. Additional households in an area will make a social contribution through supporting and sustaining any existing community services and providing housing in an area to support present and future needs. New landscaping and biodiversity enhancements can also present a positive environmental contribution.

The Core Planning Principles of the NPPF state that planning should proactively drive and support sustainable development to deliver the homes and thriving places that the country needs. Every effort should be made to objectively identify and then meet the housing and development needs of an area and respond positively to the wider opportunities for growth. The core principles also focus on delivering high quality design, recognising the different roles and characters of different areas, conserving the natural environment, and actively managing patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and focusing significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable. These matters are considered within the report.

109 of 119

When considering new housing in rural areas, Paragraph 55 advises that 'To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby.' Paragraph 55 goes on to say that Local Planning Authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances, including: essential accommodation for a rural worker...re-use redundant buildings and lead to enhancement of immediate setting...or represent innovative design.'

The key considerations with this application are: the accessibility and sustainability of the location; the impact on the character and appearance of the area; impact on neighbouring properties; and impact on the highway. Other matters such as the impact on trees, biodiversity and the requirement for the legal agreement will also be assessed.

Isolated development and unsustainable location

The Council's Adopted Local Plan defines a 'sustainable location' as:

'A location which for new housing is easily accessible to employment, education, retail, community and other facilities by a choice of attractive means of transport other than the private car. For other uses the primary consideration will be that the site itself is easily accessible by a choice of attractive means of transport other than the private car.'

The application site lies adjacent to other residential dwellings the site cannot be considered to be physically remote. However the site is not considered to have easy access to employment, education, retail, community and other facilities by a choice of attractive means of transport other than the private car and is therefore not considered to be a sustainable location for new development.

Stratfield Saye is a small village located between Stratfield Turgis to the east and Silchester to the west. Bramley lies to the south and Mortimer Common to the north. Members will recall determining application 13/02731/OUT for up to 5 residential dwellings at Herriots Farm which is located within the Stratfield Saye Parish and 0.8km to the south of the application site. Members determined that that application should be refused on the following grounds: Unsustainable form of development; Suburban form of development; Impact on Herriots Farmstead as a undesignated heritage asset; Conflicting agricultural and residential activities; absence of a legal agreement.

In determining that the development was unsustainable, Members were referred to the Planning Inspectors appeal decision for application BDB/72809 which was an application for a commercial use on the site. In the appeal decision the Planning Inspector makes reference to the row of houses that this application is adjacent to, paragraph 33 of the Appeal Decision determines that the application site (Berrydown) does not lie within a rural settlement and Stratfield Saye itself is not a village due to the absence of retail, community and employment services. It states:

In addition to the absence of employment facilities, a school and a shop, the nearest bus stop is located along New Street to the north east of the site. Whilst it would be conceivable to walk to this bus stop, the bus service itself is not considered to be regular, as it operates a twice weekly service to Reading. The Parish Council clarify the extent of this service within their comments, where they state: 'There are no public bus services running through the village as stated, all that is available is a coach once a week to

110 of 119

Reading leaving the village at 9.00am and returning 2 hours later.' It is also understood that there are discussions to discontinue this service. Whilst this itself is not a planning matter, it emphasises that the site would not be well served by public transport, and trips to and from the site to services and facilities afar, would be heavily reliant on the private motor car.

Therefore as the application site is considered to lie within an unsustainable location and does not have easy access to employment, education, retail, community and other facilities by a choice of attractive means of transport other than the private car, the application proposal for residential development is considered to represent an unsustainable form of development for which there is no special justification. The proposed dwelling is not proposed for a rural worker, is not the reuse of a heritage asset or an existing building and the proposed design is not of exceptional quality. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the principles of Saved Policies D6 and D9 of the Adopted Local Plan and paragraph 55 of the NPPF and is, therefore, unacceptable in principle.

Impact on the character and appearance of the area.

It is acknowledged that an environmental benefit of the proposal and visual amenities of the area would be the removal of the existing stable buildings, which are considered to be within a dilapidated state. This benefit is acknowledged by a number of residents in their support for the application, however this is not exclusively relied upon by the applicant's agent within their design and access statement, which simply states: ' In environmental terms the proposed dwelling will add an attractive dwelling to this end of Green Lane.'

In considering the merits of the application, the extent of the built form of development proposed and whether the proposal can be sufficiently integrated into the rural context is considered necessary in order to assess whether removal of the existing buildings and the erection of the new dwelling represents an environmental sustainability benefit that outweighs the harm of a new dwelling within an unsustainable location.

The combined footprint of the existing buildings equates to an approximate footprint of 263m². These are all single-storey buildings which were built for a rural use for stabling. These buildings are no longer used for stabling and have since been used for the unauthorised storage of cars and domestic equipment. During that time they have fallen within a dilapidated state. Whilst their removal would be positive environmental benefit, this does not automatically render a residential use to be the most favourable use. Indeed such removal could be secured through other mechanisms such as a Section 215 notice which would achieve the same benefit by requiring the applicant to tidy up the site if the harm to the visual amenity of the area was considered to be so significant. In this instance the state of the existing buildings on the site does not result in significant harm to the visual amenity of the area to warrant enforcement through a Section 215 notice.

The proposed dwelling, garage and hardstanding parking area would result in more built form than existing, covering an approximate footprint of 315m². It is considered that the benefit of removing these buildings would be outweighed in itself by replacing them with considerably more development at a larger, more imposing scale.

Given the amount of additional development proposed and the size of the site, it is considered that the proposal would amount to an overdevelopment of the plot, which would be out of character and scale with the immediate area, and inappropriate for the

111 of 119 rural context, and would lead to an unsympathetic expansion of built form into the countryside.

The existing site is 0.19 acres in size, or 770m² in area. The amount of built development would cover approximately 315m² of the site (41%) which is considered to be substantial for a rural site where it is expected that a significant amount of spacing and landscaping should be retained and enhanced. Notwithstanding that the proposed amenity space for the dwelling meets the guidance contained within' Appendix 16 - Residential Amenity Design Guidance' of the Council's Design and Sustainability SPD, which seeks to achieve a minimum of 60m² of residential amenity space for 3 bedroom plus properties, the amenity space provided does not achieve the minimum garden depth of 10.0m. Furthermore the guidance also stipulates that garden sizes should be increased depending on the character of the area where:

'The guidance given on the size of back gardens for houses are minimum areas. However, the size of a garden will also be dependent on the character of a development and its surrounding area. For example, in lower density areas dominated by landscaping and substantial gaps between houses, then gardens larger than the above minimum sizes may be required.'

In this instance, it is considered that the rural context of the site would require amenity spaces to be larger than the minimum standards, which, coupled with new landscaping and spacing in and around the new buildings, would enable the development to be in keeping with neighbouring dwellings and the rural environment. In contrast this site would be dominated by a built frontage spanning the full width of the site and the rear garden would be dominated by the proposed two-storey rear projection. This would leave limited space in and around the building and limited useable amenity space. On this basis it is considered that the proposal would amount to an overdevelopment of the plot.

Furthermore, the proposed development is considered to be out of character and scale with the immediate area, and inappropriate for the rural context. The site would be dominated by a two storey dwelling spanning across the whole site. The neighbouring dwellings of Berrydown and Greenfields are bungalows and the existing stable buildings are also single storey, which aids the transition between this isolated small section of residential development and the countryside to the east. Whilst it is acknowledged that Waterloo Cottage located further west is a two storey dwelling, its frontage is relatively short in comparison (12.0m) and partly stepped back from the road. It is also lies adjacent to a single-storey dwelling where its frontage has less of an impact. In contrast the proposed dwelling has a wide frontage (23.2m) and sits at the end of the row of dwellings and would be read in isolation and would visually dominate the neighbouring bungalows, due its substantially larger size and scale. In addition its frontage areas would be dominated by hard surfacing with associated car parking, which expands the built form of development across the whole site. Also the proposal represents an urban form of development, dominated by built form and hard landscaping in this rural location. Whilst some additional landscaping is proposed to the front, this is unlikely to soften the impact of this imposing and urban form of development. It is noted that the Council's Landscape Officer does not raise a concern with regards to the impact on the wider character and appearance of the area, however the proposal is considered to be inappropriate in its size, scale and design, and would be out of character and scale with the immediate area. Subsequently the development would be inappropriate for the rural context, and would lead to an unsympathetic expansion of built form into the countryside.

112 of 119

As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Adopted Local Plan, and the guidance contained with Appendix 14:`Countryside Design Summary` of the Council’s Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document, and the guidance contained with Section 7 (Good Design) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Impact on residential amenity

Notwithstanding that the proposed amenity space and does not achieve a garden depth of 10.0m, in terms of the amount of amenity space provided, this exceeds the Council's guidance of 60m², therefore it is not considered that a reason for refusal could be substantiated on these grounds. However, this does not prejudice the conclusion that the proposed development would represent an overdevelopment of the site and harm to the character and appearance of the area.

In terms of the impact on neighbouring properties, the proposed dwelling would be located approximately 26m to the east of Berrydown, which is the nearest neighbouring dwelling. Given this distance and orientation of the proposed dwelling there is considered to be no impact on residential amenities in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy or loss of outlook.

Highways

The application site is located within a rural location for the purposes of the Residential Parking Standards SPD. There are four parking spaces shown for the new dwelling, which accords with the Residential Parking Standards SPD. The Highways Officer has no objection to the level of parking and considers that visibility in each direction from the site is acceptable and issues of site construction traffic, unloading, loading and turning and manoeuvring can be secured by condition. It is however that the internal dimensions for each garage door should be increased to 2.3m and removal of the existing entrance gate should be secured prior to any consent.

Legal Agreement

Saved Policies C1, C2, C7, C9 and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the guidance contained within the Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Guidance Document and the Adopted Green Space Standards set out the local context for planning contributions to be secured where there is a net gain in residential properties.

Paragraphs 012-023 of the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (which related to the removal of tariff style contributions - i.e. contributions that are not to secure a specific development) from developments of 10-units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floorspace of no more than 1,000m²), has been removed following the judgment in R (on the application of West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 2222 (Admin). This enables such contributions for developments of 1 dwelling or more to be sought from a planning application.

In respect of this application, it has been identified through the Council's 'scoping' process, that off-site financial contributions are required towards the provision of additional seats and play equipment at Stratfield Saye Recreation Ground. National Planning Practice Guidance states that ‘obligations should not be sought where they are clearly not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.’ It is considered that

113 of 119 obligations securing additional seating and play provision would be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The provision of these projects, which would fully deliver additional open space infrastructure and contribute to additional play facilities, are identified infrastructure projects discussed with the Parish Council. The recreational ground is located 174m from the application site and the dwelling would have limited useable amenity space, therefore it considered that contributions towards open space and play provision would meet the CIL test of being 'necessity’ and would comply with the all of the CIL tests. A request for has been sought but not secured, therefore the lack of a signed legal agreement generates an additional Reason for Refusal.

Ecology

A Bat Report has been submitted with the application which concludes that the no evidence of bats have been found and therefore no mitigation is required in this instance. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer agrees with the findings of the report and has raised no objection subject to an informative requiring compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The views of the Biodiversity Officer are agreed and no objection is raised in terms of biodiversity.

Contamination

The Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the Geoprobe Environmental Site Walkover report dated 24 August 2015, submitted with the application, and is satisfied with the preliminary assessment of the risks from contamination to future site users. The report recommends that a ground investigation should be undertaken to confirm ground conditions on the site and the EHO suggests conditions to request this further information. The comments of the EHO are agreed and a condition would be recommended if the application were to be recommended for approval.

Sewerage

It is noted on the application forms that it is stated that foul sewage will connect to a mains sewer. The Parish Council have advised that all the existing dwellings have cesspits. The Council consider that this would be an inappropriate drainage solution. Whilst details of the foul and surface drainage treatment could be secured through a condition, it is suggested that a package treatment plant would be the most appropriate method of drainage treatment for the site. On the basis that such an issue could be conditioned, no objection is raised on this issue.

Conclusion

Given the Borough's five year housing land supply position, paragraph 14 of the NPPF, which sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development, is relevant. Paragraph 14 indicates that, for decision taking, this means, where the development plan is silent, or relevant policies are out of date (which is the case where a five year housing land supply is not available, which is the current situation for the Borough Council), granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits; or specific policies in the framework indicate development should be restricted.

In this instance it must be acknowledged that the new dwellings would add to the local housing stock and make a positive, albeit small, contribution towards reducing the current deficit of housing in the area, which constitutes a social benefit. The development would also provide employment during construction. However these socio-economic benefits

114 of 119 would be relatively modest, and would be outweighed by the provision of a new dwelling in an unsustainable location. Whilst it is acknowledged that the removal of the existing dilapidated stable buildings would represent a benefit an environmental benefit, such a benefit would be outweighed by the fact that the proposal would amount to an increased in built development on the site on a considerably larger scale to the existing development. In addition the size, scale and design of the new dwelling would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area as it would amount to an overdevelopment of the plot, which would be out of character and scale with the immediate area, and inappropriate for the rural context, and would lead to an unsympathetic expansion of built form into the countryside. Furthermore the absence of a legal agreement securing contributions towards the delivery of additional open space and play provision generates a further reason for refusal.

On this basis the application is recommended for refusal.

115 of 119

15/03324/FUL Site Location

116 of 119

15/03324/FUL Site plan

117 of 119

15/03324/FUL Proposed house side and rear elevation

118 of 119

15/03324/FUL Proposed house front and side elevations

119 of 119