HEAD of REGULATORY SERVICES REPORT to the PLANNING COMMITTEE of 12Th April 2017

HEAD OF REGULATORY SERVICES REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OF 12th April 2017

1. INTRODUCTION This agenda considers planning applications submitted to the Council, as the Local Planning Authority, for determination

2. STATUS OF OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMITTEE'S DECISIONS All information, advice, and recommendations contained in this agenda are understood to be correct at the time of preparation, which is approximately two weeks in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints, some reports may have been prepared before the final date for consultee responses or neighbour comment. Where a recommendation is either altered or substantially amended between preparing the report and the Committee meeting or where additional information has been received, a separate “Planning Addendum” paper will be circulated at the meeting to assist Councillors. This paper will be available to members of the public.

3. THE DEBATE AT THE MEETING The Chairman of the Committee will introduce the item to be discussed. A Planning Officer will then give a short presentation and, if applicable, public speaking will take place (see below). The Committee will then debate the application with the starting point being the officer recommendation.

4. SITE VISITS A Panel of Members visits some sites on the day before the Committee meeting. This can be useful to assess the effect of the proposal on matters that are not clear from the plans or from the report. The Panel does not discuss the application or receive representations although applicants and Town/Parish Councils are advised of the arrangements. These are not public meetings. A summary of what was viewed is given on the Planning Addendum.

5. THE COUNCIL’S APPROACH TO THE DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS When considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

It will always work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. This means that any discussions with applicants and developers at both pre-application and application stage will be positively framed as both parties work together to find solutions to problems. This does not necessarily mean however, that development that is unacceptable in principle or which causes harm to an interest of acknowledged importance, will be allowed.

The Local Plan is the starting point for decision making. Proposals that accord with the Local Plan will be approved without delay. Development that conflicts with the Local Plan will be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision the Council will seek to grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise – taking into account whether: (i) Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Local Plan taken as a whole; or (ii) Specific policies in the Local Pan indicate that development should be restricted.

The Council will grant planning permission where it is satisfied that it will achieve a positive outcome that meets a recognised planning purpose.

Unsatisfactory applications will however, be refused without discussion where: (i) The proposal is unacceptable in principle and there are no clear material considerations that indicate otherwise; or (ii) A completely new design would be needed to overcome objections; or (iii)Clear pre-application advice has been given, but the applicant has not followed that advice; or (iv)No pre-application advice has been sought.

6. PLANNING POLICY All planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise If the development plan contains material policies or proposals and there are no other material considerations, the application should be determined in accordance with the development plan. Where there are other material considerations, the development plan will be the starting point, and other material considerations will also be taken into account. One such consideration will be whether the plan policies are relevant and up to date.

The relevant development plans are, the Hart District Local Plan including first alterations, retained Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan the Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton, New Forest National Park Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, and the saved policies of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

Although not necessarily specifically referred to in the Committee report, the relevant development plan will have been used as a background document and the relevant policies taken into account in the preparation of the report on each item.

The Localism Act 2011 also introduced a system of Neighbourhood Plans which are prepared by a local community for its area. These are subject to independent examination and public referendum. Where passed they become part of the development plan for the area concerned.

Emerging plans gather weight as they progress through the varying processes towards adoption, Arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a 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. Refusal of planning permission on 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.

7. THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK AND PLANNING PRACTICE GUIDANCE Government statements of planning policy are material considerations that must be taken into account in deciding planning applications. These statements cannot make irrelevant any matter that is a material consideration in a particular case. Nevertheless, where such statements indicate the weight that should be given to relevant considerations, decision-makers must have proper regard to them. The NPPF is a material consideration in determining applications. The NPPF states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development with its economic, social and environmental roles. All three aims should be sought jointly and simultaneously. The presumption in favour of sustainable development in decision making means: (i) approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and (ii) where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

The NPPF indicates that the policies for the supply of housing land in a local plan will not be considered up to date where the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land.

The Government has also published the Planning Practice Guidance which provides information on a number of topic areas. Again these comments, where applicable, are a material consideration which need to be given due weight.

8. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Material planning considerations must be genuine planning considerations, i.e. they must be related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. The considerations must also fairly and reasonably relate to the application concerned. Much will depend on the nature of the application under consideration, the relevant planning policies and the surrounding circumstances. All the fundamental factors involved in land-use planning constitute a material consideration. This includes such things as the number, size, layout, siting, design and external appearance of buildings and the proposed means of access, together with landscaping, impact on the neighbourhood and the availability of infrastructure. Relevant considerations will vary from circumstance to circumstance and from application to application.

Within or in the settings of Conservation Areas or where development affects a listed building or its setting there are a number of statutory tests that must be given great weight in the decision making process. In no case does this prevent development rather than particular emphasis should be given to the significance of the heritage asset.

The Council will base its decisions on planning applications on planning grounds alone. It will not use its planning powers to secure objectives achievable under non-planning legislation, such as the Building Regulations or the Water Industries Act. The grant of planning permission does not remove the need for any other consents, nor does it imply that such consents will necessarily be forthcoming. However, provided a consideration is material in planning terms, it will be taken into account, notwithstanding the fact that other regulatory machinery may exist.

Matters that should not be taken into account are:

loss of property value loss of view land and boundary disputes matters covered by leases or covenants the impact of construction work property maintenance issues need for development (save in certain defined the identity or personal characteristics of the circumstances) applicant ownership of land or rights of way moral objections to development like public houses or betting shops  change to previous scheme competition between firms,  or matters that are dealt with by other legislation, such as the Building Regulations (e.g. structural safety, fire risks, means of escape in the event of fire etc). - The fact that a development may conflict with other legislation is not a reason to refuse planning permission or defer a decision. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure compliance with all relevant legislation.

9. PLANNING CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS When used properly, conditions can enhance the quality of development and enable development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse planning permission, by mitigating the adverse effects of the development. Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are: 1. necessary; 2. relevant to planning and; 3. to the development to be permitted; 4. enforceable; 5. precise and; 6. reasonable in all other respects.”

It may be possible to overcome a planning objection to a development proposal equally well by imposing a condition on the planning permission or by entering into a planning obligation under. In such cases the Council should use a condition rather than seeking to deal with the matter by means of a planning obligation. Where a condition requires a matter to be dealt with prior to development commencing (also known as a ‘Grampian’ condition) it is a legal requirement to explain why the matter has be dealt with before, rather than at a later stage in development.

Planning obligations mitigate the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Obligations should meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. It particular the Planning Practice Guidance sets out minimum thresholds where, with the exception of mitigation of the effects of development on European sites, such as the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, obligations should

In all cases, including where tariff style charges are sought, the Council must ensure that the obligation meets the relevant tests for planning obligations in that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. There are also legal restrictions as to the number of planning obligations that can provide funds towards a particular item of infrastructure.

Planning obligations should not be sought – on for instance, public art – which are clearly not necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms

The Government is clear that obligations must be fully justified and evidenced.

10. PLANNING APPEALS If an application for planning permission is refused by the Council, or if it is granted with conditions, an appeal can be made to the Secretary of State against the decision, or the conditions. It is the Councils responsibility to produce evidence to show clearly, why the development cannot be permitted. Reasons for refusal must be • Complete, • Precise, • Specific • Relevant to the application, and Supported by substantiated evidence.

Appeals are administered by the Planning Inspectorate - an executive agency reporting to the Secretary of State. Appeals are considered by written representation, hearings, and public inquiries. In planning appeals, it is normally expected that both parties will pay their own costs.

The Council is at risk of an award of costs against it if it behaves unreasonably with respect to the substance of the matter under appeal, for example, by unreasonably refusing or failing to determine planning applications, or by unreasonably defending appeals. Examples of this include: • Preventing or delaying development which should clearly be permitted, having regard to its accordance with the development plan, national policy and any other material considerations. • Failure to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal on appeal • Vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact, which are unsupported by any objective analysis. • Refusing planning permission on a planning ground capable of being dealt with by conditions risks an award of costs, where it is concluded that suitable conditions would enable the proposed development to go ahead • Acting contrary to, or not following, well-established case law • Persisting in objections to a scheme or elements of a scheme which the Secretary of State or an Inspector has previously indicated to be acceptable • Not determining similar cases in a consistent manner • Failing to grant a further planning permission for a scheme that is the subject of an extant or recently expired permission where there has been no material change in circumstances • Refusing to approve reserved matters when the objections relate to issues that should already have been considered at the outline stage • Imposing a condition that is not necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects, and thus does not comply with the guidance in the NPPF on planning conditions and obligations • Requiring that the appellant enter into a planning obligation which does not accord with the law or relevant national policy in the NPPF, on planning conditions and obligations

• Refusing to enter into pre-application discussions, or to provide reasonably requested information, when a more helpful approach would probably have resulted in either the appeal being avoided altogether, or the issues to be considered being narrowed, thus reducing the expense associated with the appeal • Not reviewing their case promptly following the lodging of an appeal against refusal of planning permission (or non-determination), or an application to remove or vary one or more conditions, as part of sensible on-going case management. • If the local planning authority grants planning permission on an identical application where the evidence base is unchanged and the scheme has not been amended in any way, they run the risk of a full award of costs for an abortive appeal which is subsequently withdrawn Statutory consultees (and this includes Parish Council’s) play an important role in the planning system: local authorities often give significant weight to the technical advice of the key statutory consultees. Where the Council has relied on the advice of the statutory consultee in refusing an application, there is a clear expectation that the consultee in question will substantiate its advice at any appeal. Where the statutory consultee is a party to the appeal, they may be liable to an award of costs to or against them.

Interested parties who choose to be recognised as Rule 6 parties under the inquiry procedure rules, may be liable to an award of costs if they behave unreasonably.

11. THE ROLE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE The Secretary of State has reserve powers to direct the council to refer an application to him/her for decision. This is what is meant by a 'called-in' application. In general, this power of intervention is used selectively and the Secretary of State will not interfere with the jurisdiction of the Council unless it is necessary to do so.

12. PROPRIETY Members of the Planning Committee are obliged to represent the interests of the whole community in planning matters and not simply their individual Wards. When determining planning applications they must take into account planning considerations only. This can include views expressed on relevant planning matters. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless it is founded upon valid planning reasons.

13. PRIVATE INTERESTS The planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another, although private interests may coincide with the public interest in some cases. It can be difficult to distinguish between public and private interests, but this may be necessary on occasion. The basic question is not whether owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities and the existing use of land and buildings that ought to be protected in the public interest. Covenants or the maintenance/ protection of private property are therefore not material planning consideration.

14. OTHER LEGISLATION Non-planning legislation may place statutory requirements on planning authorities, or may set out controls that need to be taken into account (for example, environmental legislation, or water resources legislation). The Council, in exercising its functions, also must have regard to the general requirements of other legislation, in particular: • The Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. The general purpose of the ECHR is to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to maintain and promote the ideals and values of a democratic society. It sets out the basic rights of every person together with the limitations placed on these rights in order to protect the rights of others and of the wider community. The specific Articles of the ECHR

relevant to planning include Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property). All planning applications are assessed to make sure that the subsequent determination of the development proposal is compatible with the Act. If there is a potential conflict, this will be highlighted in the report on the relevant item. • The Equality Act 2010 which replaced previous discrimination legislation. This puts a duty on public bodies, such as the Council, to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations in the course of developing policies and delivering services. The aim is for public bodies to consider the needs of all individuals in their day to day work, in developing policy, in delivering services, and in relation to their own employees. The need to advance equality of opportunity involves considering the need to: o remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics; o meet the needs of people with protected characteristics; and o encourage people with protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is low

15. PUBLIC SPEAKING

The Council has a public speaking scheme, which allows a representative of the relevant Parish Council, objectors and applicants to address the Planning Committee. Full details of the scheme are on the Council’s website and are sent to all applicants and objectors where the scheme applies. Speaking is only available to those who have made representations within the relevant period or the applicant. It is not possible to arrange to speak to the Committee at the Committee meeting itself.

Speakers are limited to a total of three minutes each per item for the Parish Council, those speaking against the application and for the applicant/agent. Speakers are not permitted to ask questions of others or to join in the debate, although the Committee may ask questions of the speaker to clarify representations made or facts after they have spoken. For probity reasons associated with advance disclosure of information under the Access to Information Act, nobody will be allowed to circulate, show or display further material at, or just before, the Committee meeting.

16. LATE REPRESENTATIONS

To make sure that all documentation is placed in the public domain and to ensure that the Planning Committee, applicants, objectors, and any other party has had a proper opportunity to consider further or new representations no new additional information will be allowed to be submitted less than 48 hours before the Committee meeting, except where to correct an error of fact in the report.

17. INSPECTION OF DRAWINGS

All drawings are available for inspection on the internet at www.hart.gov.uk Annex A to Planning Report

Contributions towards Community Infrastructure and Mitigation to the effects of Residential Development on European Sites

Introduction

In considering any development proposal it is necessary to consider is whether it will have a planning impact. This may be an impact on policy, on the environment, amenity or the physical capacity of the infrastructure to accommodate the development, with the Council not seeking to rectify any deficiencies. This can often be addressed by the use of planning conditions.

Planning conditions cannot however be used to require payment of money (so a tariff based approach is ruled out) and any use of planning conditions will have to meet the 6 tests on the use of planning conditions as set out in the NPPF. This means that planning conditions should only be imposed where they are: (i) Necessary; (ii) Relevant to planning; (iii) Relevant to the development to be permitted; (iv) Enforceable; (v) Precise and; (vi) Reasonable in all other respects.

Such a planning condition would require that the necessary infrastructure to be put in place in line with an agreed timetable. This may be facilitated by a “planning obligation” under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended). A “planning obligation” may: a) Restrict the development or use of the land in any specified way; b) Require specified operations or activities to be carried out in, on, under or over the land; c) Require the land to be used in any specified way; or d) Require a sum or sums to be paid to the authority on a specified date or dates or periodically.

The Council’s Community Infrastructure Policy was agreed at Cabinet in December 2010 and sets out the Council’s overall approach towards the collection of contributions towards transport, education, leisure and open space, and the Thames Basins Heath SPA.

It stipulates that planning obligations would only be sought: a) On case by case basis, and b) Taking into account development viability, c) Where they meet the three policy test as set out in the National Planning Policy Frameworks (NPPF) as well as the CIL Regulations, and d) Where there are agreed projects that meet the criteria set out in the advice note issued by the Planning Inspectorate, and e) Where an agreed programme exists to implement the infrastructure.

The Council’s Cabinet has subsequently updated the list of projects on a number of occasions lastly at its meeting held on 7 August 2014.

Reference should also be made to the preface to the Committee report paper which sets out information on Government Policy.

This Annex sets out the Council’s policy position in respect of contributions and should be read in conjunction with the individual reports which will set out the justification for the contribution sought in each individual case.

Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

Saved local plan policies CON1 and CON2 relate to the Thames Basin Special Protection Area (SPA) and state that development which would adversely affect the nature conservation value of a site will only be permitted if it can be subject to conditions that will prevent damaging impacts on wildlife habitats or other natural features of importance on the site or if other material factors are sufficient to override the nature conservation interest. South East Plan policy NRM6 requires adequate measures to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects on the Thames Basin Special Protection Area (SPA).

The SPA is a network of heathland sites which are designated for their ability to provide a habitat for the internationally important bird species of woodlark, nightjar and Dartford warbler. The area is designated as a result of the Birds Directive and the European Habitats Directive and protected in the UK under the provisions set out in the Habitats Regulations. These bird species are particularly subject to disturbance from walkers, dog walkers and cat predation because they nest on or near the ground.

Natural England has indicated that it believes that within 5km of the SPA additional residential development in combination will have a significant effect on the SPA. Thus without mitigation any proposal is contrary to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

In April 2008 the Thames Basin Heaths Joint Strategic Partnership agreed a Thames Basin Heaths Delivery Framework to enable the delivery of housing in the vicinity of the SPA without that development having a significant effect on the SPA as a whole. The delivery framework is based on avoidance measures and the policy indicates that these measures can take the form of areas of open space known as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). The policy also states that local authorities will collect developer contributions towards mitigation measures including the provision of SANGs land and joint contributions to the funding of Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) the effects of mitigation measures across the SPA.

To allow the Council to conclude that a proposal will have no likely significant effect on the SPA there are likely to be two options. The first is to provide, lay out and ensure the maintenance of, in perpetuity, of a SANG. The physical provision of SANG is likely only to be suitable for schemes in excess of 60 dwellings due to the need to meet Natural England’s guidelines for SANGs. The achievement of this is likely to be through the mechanism of a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). The second is to enter into a land transaction for an appropriate financial sum with the Council to obtain a licence to utilise part of one of the Council’s SANGs in mitigation. In addition a financial contribution will be sought towards SAMM. The sums the Council considers appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the development and how they are calculated, are set out in the policy.

In terms of the tests set out in the NPPF, a planning condition is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms by mitigating against the impact of an increase in population within 5km of the SPA. It relates both to planning (the protection of the SPA) and the development itself with the size of contribution sought relates to the population that will be likely to occupy the development. The wording of the condition will be precise, enforceable and the condition will be reasonable in all other respects.

It would be therefore be possible to conclude that the development will not have an adverse effect on the SPA and therefore complies with saved policies CON1 and CON2, South East Plan policy NRM6 and the CIL Regulations.

Transport

Saved Local Plan policies T14 and T16 seek to ensure that development is served effectively by public transport, cycling or walking and that improvements made necessary by development are to be funded by that development. This relates not only to physical improvements required to permit development to take place (such as sight lines at an entrance to a site), but also to the wider network, seeking to allow development provided that it could be effectively served by public transport, cycling and walking.

The Hampshire Local Transport Plan (LTP) relates to the years 2011 - 2031 and makes reference to the North Hampshire Transport Strategy (NHTS) which covers the areas administered by Hart District Council, Rushmoor and Basingstoke and Deane Borough Councils and that part of the area of Test Valley Borough Council north of the A303.

Within the Fleet/Church Crookham/Elvetham Heath area the County Council has also adopted the Fleet Town Access Plan (FTAP) as a sub-programme of NHTS.

The Hampshire wide Local Transport Plan identifies a number of key themes: a) Supporting the economy through resilient highways; b) Management of traffic; c) The role of public transport; d) Quality of life and place; e) Transport and growth areas

Additional development brings with it additional multi-modal transport impacts. This is additional cars, cycles and use of public transport which has an incremental impact on the transport infrastructure. In line therefore with saved policy T14 it is incumbent on developers to show how they intend the development to be served by public transport, cycling and walking. The provision of a contribution towards either NTHS or FTAP would provide that mitigation.

In terms of the policy tests in the NPPF the condition is necessary in that it will secure a scheme that will mitigate the effects of the development on the local transport infrastructure which relates to planning. The scale and kind of the contribution sought relates to the increase in transport activity. The details of the direct link between the schemes the contribution will fund and the development are set out in the Committee report. The wording of the condition will be precise, enforceable and the condition will be reasonable in all other respects.

Leisure

As part of living in a dwelling its residents will use the local leisure infrastructure to undertake recreation. The impact on infrastructure used for recreation is clearly a material planning consideration.

Some of this infrastructure is of a strategic, District-wide, nature while other is more local. At a local level the Council has determined that as a general rule the local infrastructure will be considered at the Parish level.

Even where infrastructure is of a District wide nature it is clear that the further from a development itself the less likely that the residents will use that infrastructure. Utilising visitor data, the Council has set “zones of influence” of the individual elements where it is known that residents visit and will have an impact.

In terms of the policy tests in the NPPF the condition will secure a scheme to mitigate the effects of the development on the leisure infrastructure, which, as set out above, relates to planning. The scale and kind of the contribution sought relates to the increase in leisure activity. The details of the direct link between the projects the scheme will be spent on and the development are set out in the Committee report. The wording of the condition will be precise, enforceable and the condition will be reasonable in all other respects. Without the necessary scheme in place additional development would exacerbate the existing deficiency in provision for leisure facilities within the vicinity of the site through an increase in population who would have access to the facilities. The nature of the scheme has been assessed through the Council's Leisure Strategy as being appropriate to mitigate these effects.

Education

Hampshire County Council has advised in their policy document Developers’ Contributions towards Children’s Services Facilities December 2011 where the availability of school places is particularly critical, contributions should be sought in relation to each individual dwelling. Hampshire County Council has confirmed that there are particular pressures on places at the primary and secondary schools in the Fleet/Church Crookham schools and Hook catchment areas, and in the catchment of the Robert Mays secondary school in Odiham where any increase in population will add to the demand beyond the available capacity. Full details of the issues are set out in the Community Infrastructure Policy.

In Fleet/Church Crookham, Hook and Odiham programmes for the provision of additional educational facilities are well advanced. The County Council considers it preferable to invest in existing schools where achievable in building terms and where agreement can be reached with the headteacher and governors of the schools involved.

Schools are ideally organised into classes of 30 pupils across the age range of the school to support curriculum delivery relevant to the pupil year group and to meet statutory class size regulations whereby no class can be larger than 30 for pupils aged 5 to 7. It is not practical, therefore, for schools to marginally increase their capacity, have larger than ideal class sizes, or create a budget deficit due to the need to employ an additional teacher for very small increases to pupil numbers.

In terms of the policy tests in the NPPF the agreed scheme will mitigate the effects of the development on the education infrastructure, which as set out above relates to the proper planning of the area. The scale and kind of the contribution sought relates to the facilities being provided. The details of the direct link between the contribution and the development are set out above. The wording of the condition will be precise, enforceable and the condition will be reasonable in all other respects.

Item No: 101 16/02377/FUL Page: 13 – 44

Refer to Full Council Recommending Refusal

Broden Stables Redlands Lane Crondall Farnham GU10 5RF

Demolition of the existing stable building, arena, floodlights and hardstanding, and the erection of 30 residential dwellings, with associated access, landscaping, and car parking arrangements.

Item No:102 16/02989/OUT Page: 45 – 67

Refer to Full Council Recommending Grant

Land At Odiham Road Riseley Reading Berkshire

Outline application for the development of up to 83 residential dwellings, vehicular access from Odiham Road, public open space, ancillary works and associated infrastructure on land off Odiham Road, Riseley. All matters reserved except for access.

Item No: 103 17/00460/HOU Page: 68 – 74 Grant

22 Oasthouse Drive Fleet Hampshire GU51 2UL

Single storey rear extension and loft conversion over garage

Item No: 104 17/00545/PRIOR Page: 75 – 79 Prior Approval Not Required

7 Home Park Road Yateley Hampshire GU46 6HN

Ground Floor Rear extension.

COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 101 APPLICATION NO. 16/02377/FUL LOCATION Broden Stables Redlands Lane Crondall Farnham GU10 5RF PROPOSAL Demolition of the existing stable building, arena, floodlights and hardstanding, and the erection of 30 residential dwellings, with associated access, landscaping, and car parking arrangements. APPLICANT Crondell Developments Limited CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 22 March 2017 APPLICATION EXPIRY 7 December 2016 WARD Odiham RECOMMENDATION Refer to Full Council with a recommendation to refuse permission.

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Please Note: Map is not to scale

Site Landscaping Plan

......

L--PIIOI'

Context Elevations

1-TERRAIN SECTION1

2-TERRAIN SECTION 2

!·TERP.'IN SETIJ'Il T:AA.\ \ SC!IIOil 5

Sample of Proposed Elevations

FRONT ELEVATION (SHOWN AS SEMI-DETACHED

REAR ELEVATION (SHOWN AS SEMI•DETACHEO

SIDE ELEVATION B

BACKGROUND This application is recommended for refusal. As the application represents a departure from the Local Plan, given that the site lies outside of the settlement boundary and in that respect is contrary to saved Local Plan policy RUR2, and the application in not being refused because it is contrary to RUR2 but rather on design grounds, the application must be determined by Full Council.

THE SITE The application site is located in open countryside beyond Crondall's settlement boundary and is currently used for stabling. Crondall village has developed in a predominantly linear pattern, with most of its development extending along the main roads into and out of the village.

Crondall New Surgery is located to the west of the application site as is Crondall Conservation Area, which runs along Pankridge Street. There are several Listed Buildings within the Conservation Area near to the application site, including Willow Cottage on Redlands Lane.

The application site is accessed from Redlands Lane. Redlands Lane is a rural lane, much of which is single track, with intermittent passing places. The boundaries of the site are marked by mature trees and hedging and a TPO protects trees in the north eastern corner of the site. Part of the site has been previously developed and contains stables, a full-sized arena, floodlighting, paddocks, and a yard. The remainder of the site are grassed paddocks. Public rights of way run along the eastern and northern boundaries of the site providing pedestrian access into Crondall.

PROPOSAL Demolition of the existing stable building, arena, floodlights and hardstanding and the erection of 30 residential dwellings, with associated access, landscaping and car parking arrangements.

The dwellings comprising four x 2-bedroom flats, 10 x 2-bedroom houses, 12 x 3-bedroom houses, and four x 4-bedroom houses. A total 12 of these (40% of the total) would be affordable. There would be a provision of 62 car parking spaces, both individual homes and visitor parking.

PLANNING HISTORY 08/01563/FUL - Retention of two manually operated floodlights for sand school - GRANTED 14.08.2008 15/03091/PREAPP - Demolition of existing building, sand school and floodlighting and erection of 30 residential dwellings - Advice given 25.01.2017 16/02377/SANGS - SANG and SAMM mitigation in relation to 16/02377/FUL demolition of the existing stable building, arena, floodlights and hardstanding, and the erection of 30 residential dwellings, with associated access, landscaping, and car parking arrangements - GRANTED 27.09.2016

CONSULTEES RESPONSES

Highways – NO OBJECTIONS 1) Vehicular access and visibility The proposal would imply the closure of the current access to the land and the creation of a new one near the Northwest corner of the site.

The new access is considered to be acceptable. For this acceptation it has been taken into consideration the corner radii of the new access following DMRB, its width in accordance with the swept paths addressed by the applicant and the provided visibility in accordance with the speed results obtained from Traffic Count Surveys and Manual for Streets recommendations in respect of it.

In order to ensure the visibility will be as proposed, a condition should be included (should the Case Officer be minded to grant this Application) to keep clear the vegetation within the visibility splays area at all times.

The road works proposed off-site are considered to be safe following the Road Safety Audit submitted by the Applicant and all the changes incorporated to introduce the Road Safety Auditors comments.

2) Pedestrian access and pedestrian safety This site is considered to be fully accessible for pedestrians by the existing footpath which connects Pankridge Street with the land adjacent to the development.

The Applicant has proposed to connect this infrastructure with their land through the right of way, internally to the site. It is considered needed to set up a condition (should the Case Officer be minded to grant this Application) to ensure that the footpath which runs adjacent to the proposed road widening to the main access to the development is always maintained at least 0.9 m wide, clearing vegetation always it's needed in order to allow pedestrians to make use of it without having the need of walking along Redlands Lane.

Please note the Applicant that permission is needed from Hampshire to upgrade the PROW in case it is required.

Width of internal footpaths is considered to be adequate. Dropped kerbs and tactile paving should be provided where needed.

3) Internal Layout and Servicing Arrangements The internal road has been proposed in such a way which is acceptable as it allows adequate servicing arrangements and allows for safe driving, account taken of the expected on-site traffic flows.

4) Parking Provision Following the Transport Assessment addressed, 62 parking spaces are to be provided, which covers residents and visitors as considered on the calculations to agree the following provision level:

2 bed flats - 1.5 parking space per flat 2 bed houses - 2 parking spaces per house 3 bed houses - 2 parking spaces per house 4 bed houses - 3 parking spaces per house

Notes included in Residential Parking Provision of Parking Provision Interim Guidance of HDC state that "if a developer considers that this would give rise to an inappropriate level of parking provision then they should provide evidence with the application justifying their position". The explanation given to justify the above takes into account the Census 2011 data for the particular area of the development and adds visitors provision to the results. Particularly, the Applicant has taken into account the data for the Crondall Ward which relates to car ownership per dwelling depending on the number of rooms of those dwellings. The calculations and explanations submitted to us on the 16th June 2016 are fully valid from a highway perspective and can be seen within the Traffic/Transport - Note on Parking which is part of the application documentation.

5) Trip generation and transport contribution TRICs data have been obtained through adequate similar to the development sites and as such the expected trip rate is considered accurate. Following the above, the development is likely to generate 138 vehicular trips per day. This traffic was not to be absorbed by the immediately adjacent road in a safe way and therefore off-site road works have been proposed, which are considered to be acceptable and an improvement to the highway.

It is considered that the proposed road works are enough to mitigate the traffic impact of the proposal and therefore a Transport Contribution is not required, as otherwise it would not be CIL compliant.

In accordance with all the above it is considered that the development is adequate in terms of highways and parking provision and will not be detrimental to the highway safety nor increase the traffic in an unacceptable way.

No highway objection subject to the following conditions: - Levels: longitudinal and cross sections need to be submitted and approved by us prior to commencement of development. - Maintenance of parking facilities at all times and use only for that purpose is required. - Entering into S106/S278 agreement to secure the off-site works is required. - Landscaping: details including heights so we ensure adequate visibility at all times need to be submitted and approved by us prior to commencement of development. - The proposed footpath which runs adjacent to the proposed road widening to the main access to the development needs to be always maintained at least 0.9 m wide, clearing vegetation always it's needed in order to allow pedestrians to make use of it without having the need of walking along Redlands Lane.

Landscape Architect (Internal) – OBJECTION Development proposals for 30 dwellings at Broden Stables, located outside of the established settlement boundary, is therefore a departure from local and national policy.

The gradual expansion of historic villages is often characterised by ribbon development extending outwards from the village centre. Crondall reflects this development pattern along all of the small scale lanes within and supplying the village. As such this development pattern very much forms a recognisably strong characteristic of the historic village (covered in the CA Appraisal Statement section 3.9 to 4.1).

The characteristics of heritage assets and the influencing character and amenity of the countryside are both very important factors when considering proposals such as this. Whilst the Crondall CA does not directly abut the site, the site is nonetheless visible from within the CA. The field network in this area east of the settlement boundary therefore provides important setting to the Crondall CA.

Indeed, The Crondall Conservation Area Statement highlights on the appraisal map (although not specifically mentioned in the document text), that there are important views extending east from the beginnings of Redlands Lane, up the hill and out of the small scale built environment of the village. It is also interesting to note that the previous CA Appraisal defined important views of the rising pastures either side of Redlands Lane; views that very much encompassed the location of the site today.

Redlands Lane itself is very narrow for most if not all of its length up to the A287 Farnham Road. Adjacent to the northern boundary of the site the lane sits in a relatively deep cutting, with rising unmade edges to the blacktop surface, that is only a little wider than the width of a car.

This field network to the east of Crondall is also occupied by several PRoW. FP 17 runs along the northern boundary of the site terminating at the entrance to the doctors surgery.

FP 17 runs along the northern boundary of the site terminating at the entrance to the doctors surgery. FP 19a runs along the eastern boundary of the highest part of the site, heading towards Redlands Lane from the south. I have had the chance to walk these footpaths and although various hedgerows partly screen the paddock and stables, they are nonetheless visible, especially in winter. As such these propsals will remove the existing rural character for these sections of the PRoW network, replacing it with something far more urban.

These two PRoW are both located on higher ground than Pankridge Street and due to this higher vantage point allow views down into the Crondall CA. One of the overriding characteristics or impressions from here is the small rural scale of the village in contrast to the much larger scale of the landscape. These proposals place a far more dense development within the amenity of these footpaths and therefore have a negative impact on receptors that use them.

Principles of good urban design recommend that development should be inclusive and not turn its backs to the highway, which these proposals do. Redlands Lane is very narrow for most of its length. As it progresses eastwards the level of the lane rises less sharply than that of the site such that the lane forms a 'cutting'. The proposals show a hedge forming the rear boundaries of the proposed plots that back onto the lane. Between the hedge and the site boundary runs FP 17, which the Definitive Statement says should be 1.8m wide. Clearly this makes facing the highway problematic. In addition though, potential buyers require more than a new hedge to form rear boundaries so more often than not 1.8m high wooden fencing is also proposed, or arrives later as in the form of amended details.

A new hedge planted on the north side of a high fence and beneath the canopies of existing trees will unfortunately not result in an enhancement, but more likely a line of failing, light suppressed hedge plants. As such this part of the proposals does not seem feasible.

In addition, any necessary highway improvement to accommodate the addition of 30 new dwellings was not indicated or available during the pre-app. More latterly as part of this application however highways details have been made available and appear extensive in relation to the current small scale characteristics of Redlands Lane.

The highways details illustrate that Redlands Lane will need to be shifted north into the existing bank on that side of the lane. This is to allow for a 1m wide pavement proposed to lead up to the site entrance from the doctors surgery. Here the existing hedgerow is tight to the surfacing on the north side of the lane. From this I can only conclude that the much of the woody vegetation that currently abuts the lane will need to be removed.

This also applies to the south side where the pavement is proposed. Indeed, a relatively mature Oak tree is located here on the slope of the cutting and from a visual assessment, appears to be substantially at risk from these proposed works (excavation needed within the RPA etc).

The knock on effects of the highway alterations, to greater and lesser extents as Redlands Lane passes the site, appears to me to put at substantial risk much of the off site vegetation. The lane from the entrance to the doctors surgery is characterised by the tunnel effect of overhanging trees. If these are put at risk the proposals will significantly impact on the prevailing, positive characteristics of the lane, changing from an enclosed character to something far more open.

The rear gardens backing onto Redlands Lane are also proposed to have 1.8m high close boarded fencing. This form of fencing is urbanising and may become highly visible to the lane.

In addition, highways improvement inevitably have an urbanising impact, especially on a very small scale country lane that currently exhibits very little in the way of highway engineering.

In terms of a receptors perception, the general understanding of the hierarchy of roads tells us that they decrease in scale as they move from major roads to minor. The highways requirement for these proposals however create a fully engineered, full width entrance for the site, but supplied, even with the alterations in Redlands Lane, by a much smaller, much more rural lane.

Given the above with regard to the highway and entrance issues, it appears to me that these proposals will present an incongruous relationship between the site and the surrounding context. Or in other words, a contrived appearance.

In terms of site design, the centrally located open space is a welcoming feature, but for the residents of the site only, and only once they have fully entered the site. Until that point though, passers by and residents alike will be presented with a flank wall on their right and rear elevation and extended flank wall on their left. The separation distance between these appears to be a narrow and oppressive 10-11m. The 'tightness' of this arrangement is visually unacceptable in the relation to the surrounding context.

The pre-app proposals illustrated a far more modern approach to the appearance of the units that if dealt with sensitively would be a welcome change to the more banal proposals more often put in front of us. However, those proposals included units at 2.5 and 3 storeys; a complete and unacceptable contrast to the 1 to 2 storeys of the existing nearby context.

For this application though the design of the houses do not go beyond what I consider to be a standard house type that at the densities proposed, bear no relationship with the surrounding context.

To conclude, these proposals are contrary to policy with regard to development outside of the settlement boundary. They more or less abut the Crondall CA but appear to take no account of the character, scale and massing that the CA has been designated for. As such there is significant potential to have a negative impact on the CA. The highway alteration necessary to provide access to the development will have an urbanising impact on the character of the lane. This may also result in a significant loss of vegetation along the lane past the site, creating a far more open character to what is currently very enclosed. The scale of the access is far greater than Redlands Lane with two large elevations creating a visually constricting gap between. The appearance of this will appear incongruous and diminish what is otherwise a positive approach and entrance to the Crondall CA.

Ecology Consult (Internal) – NO OBJECTIONS I have no objection to this application on the grounds of biodiversity subject to the mitigation measures in the Aspect ecology report being implemented in full. I also recommend that a detailed ecological management plan is submitted and agreed with the local authority prior to any works. This should build on the suggested enhancements in the ecology report.

Drainage (Internal) – NO OBJECTIONS We understand that given existing borehole data and topography of the site the risk of groundwater flooding is deemed lower than that indicated by the Environment Agency historic data and the BGS susceptibility to groundwater flooding.

We are pleased to see that some mitigation measures are proposed to minimise the residual risk of groundwater flooding including raising finished floor levels by 150mm above surrounding ground levels, sealing foul and surface water drainage networks and fitting non-return valves to the properties to minimise the risk of internal foul flooding. Given the above we have no objection to the proposal on groundwater flooding grounds.

Condition:

Prior to commencement, the development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved RSK letter 132739.L03 dated 13th December 2016 to Susanna Hope and the following mitigation measures detailed within the letter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

o Finished Floor Levels are to be set no lower than 150mm above surrounding ground levels o Foul and surface water drainage system are to be sealed o Non return valves to be fitted to all properties

Reason: To minimise the risk of internal flooding from groundwater and foul sources

Environmental Health (Internal) – NO OBJECTIONS Thank-you for inviting this Department to comment.

1. This Department is generally satisfied with the scope and nature of the Phase 1 'Preliminary Risk Assessment' report (Ref 28582 R01 (00) as produced by RSK dated May 2016. The report has concluded that whilst risks of land contamination are likely to be low, further verification sampling is required. As such should the development be permitted, a suitable 'Land Contamination' condition should be imposed.

Should any unexpected land contaminants or ground conditions be identified during development then this Department should be notified accordingly.

2. Should there be a history of flooding, or high water table, then detailed consideration will need to be given to capability of the development to deal with surface water and foul water discharges.

Comments made in relation to the NPPF paras 109,120 and 123.

Conservation/Listed Buildings Officer (Internal) – OBJECTIONS The proposed site is adjacent the village, but outside of the settlement policy boundary. The principle of development would be contrary to policy and therefore should be refused. If the Policy Department agree to development in this plot, then recommend a traditional liner road frontage row of cottages.

The design of the properties is urban, as opposed a rural, edge of countryside style that is reduced in scale. The overall layout of the proposal is also urban in character, not rural; that of a cramped cul-de- sac, not a traditional lane.

Many rounds of pre-app comments have been made on this site and all have been ignored. Substantial harm to the character of the designated heritage asset is created through the loss of the open edge site and the cumulative impact of the development and its urban design.

The development of the land is against local policy and therefore the scheme should be refused as a matter of principle and against the 1990 Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act Section 72; the proposal does not either enhance or preserve the character or appearance of this area.

Recommend refusal.

Tree Officer (Internal) – OBJECTIONS - The applicant has not submitted sufficient Arboricultural Impact Assessment to identify the impacts of the highway improvements to trees and hedges. The supplied arboricultural information relates to the site itself and does not reflect later amendments to the highway.

- The proposed changes to highway layout threatens the established highway trees and shrubs on both sides of the road. The true extent of tree removal and pruning has not been made clear.

- The TPP shows that the mature ash immediately to the east of the proposed access will be removed. It cannot be retained due to the substantial level-changes from the existing road into the site.

- The removal of trees and shrub masses to cater for the highway improvement may be harmful to the character of this country lane.

- Due to the uncertainty on the levels of tree/shrub mass removals, I object to the proposal.

County Rights Of Way Group – NO OBJECTIONS I can confirm that Crondall Footpaths NO.17 and 19a border the site. A number of other rights of way link in with these routes, as part of the wider access network.

In line with paragraph 75 of the National Planning Policy Framework development opportunities should be sought to provide better facilities for rights of way users, for example by adding links to the existing rights of way network. This would also help meet the aims of the Hampshire Countryside Access Plan 2015-2025. In addition, as outlined in paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies CON8 and CON23 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006, development should seek to conserve and enhance trees and hedgerows of amenity value, including providing mitigating planting where appropriate.

We note that the proposal includes the retention of the existing rights of way, and the addition of a new access connection in the site's south-east corner. Furthermore, the proposed dwellings would be set back from the site boundary, and include additional planting to act as a buffer. We are therefore satisfied that there will have no significant adverse impact upon the existing rights of way. We do however request that signage be erected where the proposed access roads would cross Footpath 17, alerting drivers to the presence of pedestrians. We would also expect to see a suitably slow speed limit in these areas. We would be grateful if these requirements could be included in the decision notice, should this application be approved.

Thames Water Property Services – NO OBJECTIONS Surface Water Drainage With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary.

Connections are not permitted for the removal of groundwater. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0800 009 3921.

Following initial investigation, Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this application. Should the local Planning Authority look to approve the application, Thames Water would like the following 'Grampian Style' condition imposed: "Development shall not commence until a drainage strategy detailing any on and/or off site drainage works, has been submitted to and approved by, the local planning authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be accepted into the public system until the drainage works referred to in the strategy have been completed". Reason - The development may lead to sewage flooding; to ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community.

Housing (Internal) – NO OBJECTIONS The affordable housing in terms of sizes and no. persons is suitable.

The only comments I have are that : Is there only 1 parking space for plot 27?

The applicant's make reference to the RP's they've talked to but I don't think we know of any who are taking the site. Have they mentioned an RP they think will take the units?

Architects Panel – OBJECTIONS o A very poor quality of space and orientation as one enters the site. The access road could be reduced in width as it meets the main highway, helping to create a positive threshold to the development. The boundary fence to the west of the access road abuts the pavement. The panel urge some planting to this flank which will make the sense of arrival more attractive and avoid cars looking into the rear of the corner house. It all feels a bit squeezed.

o Several uncomfortably small gardens or inefficient orientations suggesting an over-densification of the site. Ironically, it is the larger units which appear to have the tightest gardens.

o Standard house-types are being used in locations that would be significantly improved with a bespoke house-design.

o A suburban use of separate pedestrian and vehicle surfaces which appear awkward and inefficient, a simple shared surface may be more suitable and consideration should be made to utilising 'Home Zone' concepts. The panel questioned whether the applicant needs pavements on both sides of the road. Reducing/omitting this would really help the landscaping of the scheme, especially providing a green buffer to the fronts of the dwellings.

o Planting and quality of the central space is vital. Is it for visual amenity or play? Consider the demographics of the residents- will it be used by young kids or not? Useable space maybe important, and hence incorporating more shared surfaces.

o The units which turn their backs to Redlands Lane are not a comfortable arrangement and the justification for the final proposal is not currently strong enough. The overall arrangement is unlike any of the other figure-ground diagrams which the Design Team explored, which suggests again that the density is too high and that it is being led by the layout of the 'highway' rather than precedents of traditional rural edge-of-settlement sites / lanes.

HCC Local Lead Flood Authority – NO OBJECTIONS As Lead Local Flood Authority as our statutory consultee role in relation to: - Surface water drainage for major developments

Surface Water Drainage The additional information has indicated that the revised calculations show that the proposed surface water drainage runoff rates (4I/s) are in excess of the existing runoff rate (Qbar) from the undeveloped site.

In the majority of circumstances, this would be unacceptable in relation to the potential for increasing flood risk. We are aware of the area downstream of this site where there is existing flood risk which the increase in rates could exacerbate. However, Qbar in the revised calculations is 3.91/s, and the developers have demonstrated that they are able to control the drainage runoff rate to 41/s. In most situations, a run off rate of up to 51/s is acceptable, even if this is an increase from Qbar. This is because, below 51/s, it is very difficult to control off site discharge rates.

It seems that the developer has worked hard to reduce flood risk as much as possible. Therefore, we would be willing to accept this discharge rate. However, we would like to see that the developer has liaised with HCC Highways and residents to demonstrate that this very small increase in surface runoff will not increase flood risk downstream/on the local road system.

NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS

The following consultation responses were received:

173 - Objections 1 - Support

Following amended plans (highways changes), a further 51 objections were received.

The reasons for objecting to the scheme included:

Policy * In open countryside outside of any settlement boundary. * Brownfield sites should be considered first. * Hart have a 5 year supply of housing. * Not a sustainable form of development. * Taking advantage of lack of local plan. * The mix of market housing does not include enough smaller houses.

Local character/ landscape impact * Harm to landscape/rural character of area. * Overdevelopment.

* Scale of development is out of character. * Size and scale is unsuitable for a village environment/lose identity as a village. * Urban sprawl. * Density is out of keeping. * The design has the houses facing in, whereas the majority of village looks out onto roads. * 'Space grabbing' trying to squeeze inappropriate development in the countryside.

Heritage impact * Harm to character of Conservation Area. * Fails to preserve and enhance as per appraisal in terms of open spaces and character of area. * Erodes village character with 'urban sprawl type' development.

Highways related concerns * Additional traffic and congestion on local roads which are narrow. * Transport statement - includes lack of acknowledgement of road accidents, poor assumptions on which way traffic would go and the cumulative effect of all development in the area. * Crondall is poorly served by public transport. * Residents would be reliant on the car given the lack of nearby services, amenities and job opportunities. * The local roads are narrow, unlit and have no (or poor quality) pavements which make them unsafe for walking and cycling and disabled people. More traffic would make this worse. * Redlands Lane is an inappropriate size to accommodate a development of this type. * One access point to the development would cause bottleneck. * Not suitable for emergency access etc, given fast nature of road and inappropriate entrance access. * Parking on site poor design. * Highway safety with children crossing the roads etc.

Neighbour amenity * Overbearing and loss of privacy to existing properties on Redlands Lane and Crondall Surgery. * Unacceptable construction noise and unacceptable impact on road network. * Change in levels inappropriate for this development type and would cause unacceptable impact on row of cottages adjacent to the site. * The proposed development would affect patient safety and privacy at Crondall Surgery.

Environmental issues * Harm to biodiversity/protected species. * Protected species mitigation is not acceptable. * Noise, air and light pollution during construction phase and post construction.

Flood risk/drainage * Land is liable to flooding/historic flooding events in area. * Flood risk strategy is not suitable, change in levels will exacerbate this. * Impact on sewerage infrastructure. * Impact on surface water flooding. * Geographically the proposal is unsound with 2x major geological formations (Chalk and London clay) which would not support the buildings on the NW or west side of the A283.

Impact on infrastructure * Lacking in public amenities within the immediate area. * Travel would be required to nearest secondary schools, typically by car.

* Route unsuitable for buses. * Not enough capacity in local schools, nursery schools and doctors surgeries. * Inaccuracies in results and methodology of Traffic Study with it being based on comparative data.

SPA/ SANG * Harm to SPA. * SANG is insufficient for following reasons: * *Not in accessible location as on the edge of the village, there no safe walking routes to SANG, there are limited access points and there is no car park. * *Liable to flooding. * *Under landscaped. * *Could not take dogs off lead due to location near to busy roads. * *Would generate unwelcome noise. * *Not sufficient alternative to SPA so people will still use SPA.

Other issues * Sets precedent for unwelcome development. * Loss of agricultural land. * Loss of private view. * Plans not overly clear. * The Neighbourhood Plan which is currently under development, does not include any of this site.

The Crondall Neighbourhood Plan is still at the very early stages of development, with a draft plan for consultation in Summer 2017. Very little weight can be given to the plan at this stage.

POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES Article 4 Directions are issued by the Council in exceptional circumstances where specific control over development is required, primarily where the character of an area of acknowledged importance would be threatened. The presence of an Article 4 Direction does not preclude development but simply requires planning permission to be secured from the Council before any specified works take place.

Public rights of way are legally highways and anyone may use them at any time. However, there are different types. The public can walk on all of them, but some have extra rights to ride a horse, cycle or drive a vehicle. There are legal tests that have to be satisfied and procedures that have to be gone through before a way can be said to be a public right of way or before a right of way can be created, diverted or closed.

A tree preservation order is an order (TPO) is made by the Council in respect of trees or woodlands. The principal effect of a TPO is to prohibit the cutting down, uprooting, topping, lopping, wilful damage, or wilful destruction of trees without the Council's permission. Protection also extends to preventing the cutting of any roots. Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006

GEN1 - General policy for development

GEN3 - General Policy for Landscape Character

GEN4 - General Design Policy

GEN11 - Areas affected by flooding-poor drainage

GEN12 - Design Against Crime

ALTG13 - Affordable Housing

CON1 - Nature Conserv European Designations

CON2 - Nature Consern Designations

CON3 - Nature conservation & local designations

CON5 - Nature conserv Species Protected

CON8 - Trees, Woods & Hedgerows Amenity Value

CON11 - Archaeological Sites & Monuments

CON13 - Conservation Areas General Policy

CON22 - Setting of Settlements and Recreation

CON23 - Devl affecting public rights of way

RUR1 - Definition of areas covered

RUR2 - Devl. in open countryside General

RUR3 - Devl. in open countryside Control

T1 - Integrated Transport Network

T5 - Highway Network

T14 - Transport and Development

T15 - Development Req New Improved Access

T16 - Improvements Made Necessary by Dev

URB23 - Open Space Req's with New Development

South East Plan 2006 – 2026

NRM6 - THAMES BASIN HEATHS SPECIAL PROTECTION AREA

CONSIDERATIONS

POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES 1- Principle of development 2- Accessibility 3- Housing provision and mix 4- Impact on the character of the local area including impact on heritage assets 5- On site open space provision 6- Climate change 7- Impact on neighbour amenity 8- Access and highways issues 9- Flood Risk and drainage 10- Impact on trees and hedgerows 11- Impact on biodiversity 12- Impact on the SPA 13- Contaminated land issues 14- Other issues

1 - Principle of development The purpose of the planning system is to help achieve sustainable development and applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Current Government guidance, contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), confirms that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental.

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF confirms that, for decision taking, the presumption in favour of sustainable development means that development proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved without delay and, where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of- date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

In terms of housing developments the NPPF also indicates that Councils should seek to boost significantly the supply of housing by, amongst other things, ensuring that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, by identifying a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years' worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer to ensure choice and competition in the market for land and identifying a supply of specific developable sites or broad locations for growth for, where possible, the next 15 years.

In the light of the matters outlined above the main issues are:

a) whether the Council is able to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites; b) whether the development plan is absent, silent or out-of-date;

a) Can the Council demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites?

The Rushmoor, Hart, Surrey Heath Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2016 (SHMA) is considered to provide an appropriate basis for the establishment of the District's Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAHN). Given that the housing targets in the development plan expired in 2006 and the South East Plan was revoked in 2013, the SHMA is the most up-to-date analysis of housing need in the Housing Market Area (HMA) in general and Hart in particular.

The SHMA confirms that Hart's OAHN is 382 dwellings per annum. Recent appeal decisions have confirmed that on basis of the evidence available, the application of a 5% buffer to the five-year supply of deliverable housing sites is appropriate. The latest available data indicates that the Council currently has a 6.32 years supply of housing land, as at 1st April 2016.

The Council can therefore demonstrate in excess of a five-year supply of deliverable housing land, which means that paragraph 49 of the Framework is not engaged. As such, it is the Council's position that development plan policies relevant to the supply of housing should not be considered out-of-date by reference to this matter.

Set in its wider context it must nevertheless be recognised that there is a shortfall in housing supply against the OAHN when the HMA, of which Hart is a part with Rushmoor and Surrey Heath, is considered as a whole. This is a matter to be weighed in the planning balance but it does not, of itself, render relevant local plan policies for the supply of housing out-of-date. The NPPF is clear at paragraph 49 that this instance only arises where a local planning authority is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

In addition, it may be that Rushmoor and Surrey Heath ultimately adopt Local Plans that have constrained housing requirements as a result of the presence of Green Belt and the SPA, with a commensurate knock on increase in the housing requirement for Hart. It is however, not for individual planning applications to determine how the OAHN for the HMA may or may not be met in future. That is a matter for the Local Plan process.

b) Whether the development plan is absent, silent or out-of-date: Saved Local Plan policy RUR1 (Definition of areas covered by RUR policies) defines the rural settlement boundaries; it states that the settlement boundaries have been drawn to enclose the built fabric of the settlement and to reflect the built form of the settlement. As the application site is located within the open countryside, the proposal has to be assessed against saved policy RUR2 (Development in the Open Countryside) which states that development will not be permitted unless the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that it is specifically provided for by other policies in the local plan and it can be demonstrated that the proposal would not have a significant detrimental effect on the character and setting of the countryside. In this case there are no policies which would allow for this housing development outside of the settlement boundary.

The Council has a 5 year housing land supply so paragraph 49 of the NPPF is not engaged and therefore the housing supply policies are not deemed to be out of date for this reason.

The recent appeal decision in respect of the residential development of land at Moulsham Lane (14/02281/MAJOR) is however considered to be relevant to the determination of this application as it considered in detail the application of policy RUR2.

In his decision letter on the case the Inspector stated that:

"63. …through the application of the assessment set out in paragraph 215 of the Framework, this policy" (RUR2) "may be apportioned, at the very best, only a medium degree of weight. … It is negatively worded and applies a considerably more restrictive approach to the consideration of development that might otherwise be permitted. Accordingly such a conclusion renders policy RUR2, in my judgement, not up to date, thus invoking paragraph 14 of the Framework. Such a conclusion would be consistent with the judgement of the High Court in this regard."

"65. …, the key strategic development management policy RUR2 cannot be considered up to date and on this basis the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 14 of the Framework is engaged. I draw this conclusion in the full knowledge that the Council is currently able to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land, a position paradoxically that must in part, given the age of the plan, be as a consequence of a recognition of this, and the grant of planning permissions for housing developments outwith the settlement boundaries identified in the plan."

It is however considered that the NPPF recognises that it is appropriate for the development plan to include policies which are clear on "what will or will not be permitted and where" (para 154) and that the Local Plan should "identify land where development would be inappropriate" (para 157). Obviously, this will be done by negatively worded policies where development is not to be permitted or is inappropriate. There are also several policies in the NPPF which set out a negative approach to harmful development (such as isolated homes in the countryside (para 55) or where there is poor design (para 64) or the loss of open space (para 74) or conflict with a neighbourhood plan (para 198)) and it is considered that the Inspector's assessment in the Moulsham Lane case over-simplified the stance taken by the NPPF to development in the countryside.

Whilst the Council do not share the view that policy RUR2 is out of date when it is applied to housing development in the countryside, it is recognised that all developments must be considered having regard to the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, including the need to boost significantly the supply of housing. In other words, this does not mean that what could otherwise be considered as sustainable development, which is outside of settlement boundaries, should necessarily be refused.

At the heart of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF defines sustainable development as comprising three dimensions: economic, social and environmental and requires the planning system to perform a role in each of these inter-related areas (paragraph 7). In this respect, and in order to determine the acceptability of the proposals in respect of sustainable development, the application must be considered in terms of each of the identified roles.

- Economic: Sufficient land of the right type to support growth; - Social: Vibrant and healthy communities to supply of housing to meet present and future needs, high quality built environment; and - Environmental: Protect and enhance natural, built and historic environment

It is therefore appropriate to consider the effect of the development in terms of the overall planning balance with the benefits of the scheme, in terms of boosting housing supply and particularly affordable housing provision, in a relatively sustainable location on the edge of the rural village within the District weighed against any material harm. This balancing exercise shall be undertaken in the conclusion of this report to assess whether it is acceptable to develop this site for housing.

2 - Accessibility The NPPF makes it clear that the housing should be located on land of the right type to support growth. This means that housing should be located in places which are accessible in relation to services and amenities.

Crondall is a rural settlement within the district. Within the village centre there is a shop, two public houses, primary school, church, village hall, some small business sites, sports facilities and a play group. Outside of the centre but within Crondall there is a further public house, private hospital and retirement home. Crondall is also reasonably close to facilities in Fleet/Church Crookham.

The applicants have identifies bus services which connect Crondall with the large towns of Farnham and Fleet, although the Parish Council have queried the validity of the limited bus services to the village. The application scheme included a footpath which would link the site to the existing footpath adjacent to Redlands Road, which provides pedestrian access into the centre of Crondall.

Whilst Crondall is not in the one of the most sustainable locations in the district i.e. the main urban settlements of Fleet, Hook, Yateley, Blackwater etc it is clear that to meet the housing need over the next plan period some development is likely to be necessary within the rural settlements in the district, which provide some local services, and therefore Crondall is considered to be in a sustainable enough location for new housing growth.

3 - Housing provision and mix The NPPF paragraph 50 states that to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, local planning authorities should: - plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community - the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand; and - where they is identified affordable housing need this should be provided on site in the first instance.

According to the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2016, Hart's objectively assessed housing need is 382 dwellings per annum over the period 2014-2032. The proposal for 30 dwellings on this site would clearly contribute towards meeting that need. It would also help maintain the Council's housing land supply position while the Local Plan is being prepared. The provision of housing therefore is clearly a benefit that should be afforded weight.

Saved policy ALT GEN13 of the Hart District Local Plan seeks the provision of 40% of housing on this site to be affordable. 40% of the proposed 30 dwellings equates to 12 dwellings. The application proposes that 12 affordable dwellings would be provided on site.

Although the affordable housing has not been pepperpotted across the site and is located adjacent to the main access into the site, the Council's Housing Officer considers that the mix and size of the affordable housing is generally acceptable for the need in this area.

Whilst the principle of the affordable housing proposal is acceptable, a planning obligation would be required to secure these units as affordable. This has not been completed therefore it is recommended that there should be a reason for refusal relating to affordable housing.

The SHMA advises that the housing mix for market dwellings should be 30% one bed properties, 30-40% two bed properties and 30% three bed properties or larger. The housing mix requirement is district wide and would not necessarily need to be achieved on a site by site basis. The SHMA acknowledges that it is very difficult to be definitive about the size of market homes that will be demanded in the future as this is driven as much by changes in household incomes as it is by demographic factors. However, the estimates of the sizes of market housing required from 2014 to 2032 based on demographic trends suggests the majority of new market houses need to be two and three bedroom homes. The application proposes no one bedroom properties, 46.6% two bed properties and 53.3% three bed properties or larger. This would largely reinforce the local mix, with a slight shift towards a requirement for smaller dwellings relative to the profile of existing housing. The applicant has states that the proposed housing mix meets local need. Whilst there are no one bedroom properties proposed, there is a higher mix of two-bedroom properties. Given the character of Crondall, the proposed mix in this case is considered acceptable.

In the absence of a S106 to secure the affordable housing, the proposal fails to comply with saved policy ALTGEN13.

4 - Impact on the character of the local area including impact on heritage assets

Saved policy GEN1 states that development should be in keeping with the local character by virtue of their scale, design, massing, height, prominence, materials, layout, landscaping, siting and density. It further states that there should be provision for the conservation or enhancement of the District's landscape and historic heritage. Saved policy GEN4 states that development proposals will be permitted where they sustain or improve the urban design qualities of settlements.

Saved policy GEN3 states that within landscape character areas development will not be permitted if it adversely affects the particular character of the landscape. The Hart District Council Landscape Character Assessment shows that the site lies within Character Area 14 - Redlands, which states that the area is essentially rural, farmed character but with localised suburbanising influences, including the golf course at Crondall.

The main enhancement priorities for the area include incorporation of locally distinctive planting character and landscape features within and around the golf course to enhance its integration within the wider landscape.

Saved policy CON13 relates to conservation areas and states that proposals which do not conserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area will not be permitted.

Saved policy CON23 states that development will not be permitted which would seriously detract from the amenity and consequent recreational value of well-used footpaths and other public rights of way by reducing their rural character or detracting from significant views.

Section 7 of the NPPF: 'Requiring good design' paragraph 56 states that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Paragraph 64 states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area. Section 12 of the NPPF: 'Conserving and enhancing the historic environment', paragraph 131 states that in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and that new development should make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

Government guidance on design is contained within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) which states that development should seek to promote character in townscape and landscape by responding to and reinforcing locally distinctive patterns of development. It is confirmed that the successful integration of all forms of new development with their surrounding context is an important design objective, irrespective of whether a site lies on the urban fringe or at the heart of a town centre.

With regard to the consideration of layout the PPG advises that new development should look to respond appropriately to the existing layout of buildings, streets and spaces to ensure that adjacent buildings relate to each other, streets are connected, and spaces complement one another. In terms of the consideration of scale the Guidance confirms that decisions on building size and mass, and the scale of open spaces around and between them, will influence the character, functioning and efficiency of an area. In general it is confirmed that too much building mass compared with open space may feel overly cramped and oppressive, with access and amenity spaces being asked to do more than it feasibly can.

The proposed development will change the character of the application site from rural to urban. It will also change the character of Redlands Lane, urbanising it with views of the development as well as with the removal of established roadside trees and hedging to create a new vehicular access with suitable visibility splays and the requirement for road widening. The design and layout of the proposed dwellings will also have an impact on the character of the road, countryside and nearby Conservation Area. Given the sensitive nature of the site, any development would need to be sensitively designed to respect its surroundings.

The application was viewed by the North East Hampshire Design Review Panel. The Design Panel suggest a number of minor changes to improvement the design of the scheme, including additional landscaping and a reduction in the width of the pavements. Whilst the applicants have submitted plans to amend the scheme to incorporate these suggestions, the Council has not accepted them in this instance as it was felt that the amendments did not go far enough to address concerns of the Design Panel and the Council regarding the layout and design.

The main concerns of the Design Panel focused on the overdevelopment of the site, which manifested itself in a number of ways including dwellings too large for the plots, poor ratio between building and landscaping and road/paving dominating the layout. The Design Panel felt that the proposal was 'overly squeezed and crammed into the site', which was particularly unsuitable in this edge of settlement site, where densities should be reduced. The Design Panel also commented that the design of the houses themselves as well as the overall layout did not relate to more traditional design and patterns of development experienced in Crondall.

The Design and Access Statement, which accompanied the application, provided evidence to demonstrate that the density of the proposed development sits comfortably within ranges experienced in the local area. The proposed density is 20 dwellings per hectare, with surrounding densities of between 16-25 dwellings per hectare.

The Design Panel considered that the density of development on the edge of the settlement should be less than that experienced within the settlement to provide a transition between the urban and open countryside and there is merit in this design approach.

The applicants confirmed that the layout of the site was dictated by the access into the site and the layout of the proposed dwellings is arranged around a large 'roundabout' located in the centre of the site. The 'roundabout' has a dual purpose, both for highways purposes and for amenity space. The Design Panel questioned the purpose of this amenity space, whether for landscaping/amenity or play and how useable this space would be. The primary purpose of this area is to enable cars to access the houses, the secondary purpose has been left largely undefined. Government guidance confirms that "too much building mass compared with open space may feel overly cramped and oppressive, with access and amenity spaces being asked to do more than they feasibly can". This is particularly true of the application proposal. The second use (amenity) given to the land within the 'roundabout', is contrived and ill-conceived. Given the lack of a coherent strategy for this amenity space, it is considered that its layout is unsuitable. The application proposal is deficient in terms of on-site public open space. This will be addressed full in the next section.

Redlands Lane is a rural road, with dwellings fronting the road, with the exception of the surgery, creating a traditional liner road frontage. The application proposes dwellings which turn their backs to Redlands Lane, which the Design Panel describe as being an uncomfortable arrangement. Rear boundary treatment would instead front Redlands Lane, isolating the public footpath adjacent to Redlands Lane. The scheme does not integrate with the rest of the village and it has very little linkage through its inward facing design approach.

The layout and ratio between built form and landscaping does not complement surrounding residential development, with uncomfortably small gardens suggesting an over-densification of the site. This is emphasises by the highway dominant layout which enforces an urban feel to the development, which is continued in the standardised house-types that do not reflect the 'village' setting of Crondall. Crondall Conservation Area is located predominantly on Pankridge Street, approximate 64 metres from the application site. There are also several Listed Buildings, the closest of which is Willow Cottage on Redlands Lane. Whilst the application site does not directly abut the Conservation Area, the field network in this area east of the settlement boundary provides important setting to the Crondall Conservation Area. The Council's Conservation Officer commented that the design of the properties proposed was urban, as opposed a rural, edge of countryside style that is reduced in scale. The overall layout of the proposal is also urban in character, not rural; that of a cramped cul-de-sac, not a traditional liner road frontage row of cottages. The Conservation Officer confirms that there would be "substantial harm to the character of the designated heritage asset through the loss of the open edge site and the cumulative impact of the development and its urban design… The proposal does not either enhance or preserve the character or appearance of this area."

The applicant described the application site as 'scruffy' however the site appears tidy, organised and well- kept and importantly provides a suitable rural use in its open countryside setting. The scale and urban character of the proposal would however result in a radical change in the existing rural character of this area and would not enhance or preserve the setting and character of the nearby Crondall Conservation Area. The urban style proposed development would also negatively impact on the enjoyment of the two public footpaths adjacent to the site.

To summarise the combined impact of the overall scale and suburban character/layout/design/landscaping would result in unacceptable harm to the rural character of the local area and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and setting of the Crondall Conservation Area. Therefore the proposal fails to comply with saved policies GEN1, GEN3, GEN4, CON13 and CON23 and the guidance in the NPPF.

5 - On site open space provision Policy URB23 requires developments over 20 dwellings to provide public open space at a rate equivalent to 2.4 hectares per 1,000 persons. Based on the average of 2.72 persons per dwelling, the proposed development of 30 dwellings would generate 81.6 persons, resulting in an open space requirement of 1,958 sqm.

The proposed development incorporates 1 ,074 sqm of public open space, which includes a play area of 100 sqm. The applicant suggests that a financial contribution could be secured to mitigate for the shortfall in the provision of on-site public open space.

Whilst the principle of the financial contribution is acceptable, a planning obligation would be required to secure it. This has not been completed therefore it is recommended that there should be a reason for refusal relating to the shortfall in the provision of on-site public open space in accordance with Policy URB23.

6 - Climate change The NPPF paragraph 93 states that planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy.

The applicant has provided an Energy Statement. The following measures are proposed: - The incorporation of passive environmental technologies to improve the energy efficiency of the buildings and reduce the associated carbon emissions by up to 6% when compared with Building Regulations. - Natural ventilation with extract - Energy efficient fitting - Enhanced building fabric u-values which exceed limiting u-values for new dwellings - High efficiency boilers - Low-e glazing - Design air permeability of 5m3/h.m2@50Pa - Rainwater butts This is acceptable in compliance with the guidance in the NPPF.

7 - Impact on neighbour amenity Saved policy GEN1 permits development where there is no material loss of amenity by virtue of noise, disturbance, pollution, traffic generation, loss of privacy or overlooking. Saved policy GEN7 states that proposals for development for noise sensitive uses, such as dwellings, located close to major roads, railway lines or other noise-generating uses will only be permitted where adequate measures are taken for noise amelioration. This is supported by paragraph 109 of the NPPF which states that planning should prevent both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of noise.

The proposed development has been assessed in terms of the impact on all of the existing adjoining properties, including the doctor's surgery, specifically looking at whether there would be unacceptable noise/disturbance, overbearing impact, loss of light or loss of privacy. The closest proposed dwellings would be approximately 20 metres from the doctor's surgery and approximately 28-48 metres to the properties to the east of the application site. Ground levels across the site and between neighbouring sites vary, with the application site being on the higher ground.

Given the design of the dwellings and the separation distances, it is considered despite the ground level changes that there would be no unacceptable impact.

As with any development, there would be noise and disturbance during the construction period. This could be mitigated by conditions securing working hours, deliveries hours, and construction methods and routes.

The internal layout has also been assessed to consider the amenity of the future occupiers in terms of noise/disturbance, overbearing impact, loss of light, loss of privacy and living conditions. The majority of first floor windows on the side elevation would be to non-habitable rooms i.e. bathrooms and hallways and could be conditioned to be obscure glazed where necessary to protect privacy. The proposed dwellings provide habitable rooms with provide sufficient light and living conditions. It is considered that the living standards for the future occupiers would be acceptable.

Therefore the proposal would comply with saved policies GEN1 and GEN7.

8 - Access and highways issues Saved policies GEN1 and T14 permit development which have adequate arrangements on site for access, servicing or the parking of vehicles, and do not give rise to traffic flows on the surrounding road network, which would cause material detriment to the amenities of nearby properties and settlements or to highway safety.

Saved policies T14 and T16 seek to ensure that development is served effectively by public transport, cycling or walking and that improvements made necessary by development are to be funded by that development. This relates not only to physical improvements required to permit development to take place (such as sight lines at an entrance to a site), but also to the wider network, seeking to allow development provided that it could be effectively served by public transport, cycling and walking.

The applicant's state that the development is likely to generate 138 vehicular trips per day. This level of traffic would not be absorbed by the immediately adjacent road network in a safe way and therefore off- site road works have been proposed. The Council's Highways Officer has reviewed the application and following amendments to the access (to improve the relationship between off-site trees and the access) and a safety audit, confirmed that the off-site road works, proposed access, internal roads and footpath links are acceptable in terms of highways safety.

The application provided evidence to justify the proposed 62 car parking spaces (1.5 spaces per two bedroom flat, 2 spaces per two or three bedroom house and 3 spaces per four bedroom house), a slightly lower amount than suggested in the Council's parking standards. In justifying the lower amount, the Applicant has taken into account data for the Crondall Ward which relates to car ownership per dwelling depending on the number of rooms. The Council's Highways Officer supports this methodology and the level of car parking proposed.

The Transport Statement identifies two off-site highway works. These are: - The local widening of a stretch of Redlands Lane to provide an additional location for cars to pass each other; and - The introduction of white picket fences either side of Redlands Lane with signage to advertise the entrance to Crondall and to encourage responsible driving within the village

The road widening could be secured by a Grampian planning condition, however a planning obligation would be required to secure the works to the entrance of the village from Redlands Road. A S106 has not been completed therefore it is recommended that there should be a reason for refusal relating to the off- site highway works.

Existing public footpaths, No.17 and 19a, run along the eastern and northern boundary of the site. Hampshire County Council Rights Of Way Officer has reviewed the application and has confirmed that there will be no significant adverse impact upon the existing rights of way subject to several conditions regarding signage and road speeds.

In the absence of a S106 to secure the off-site highways improvements, the proposal therefore fails to comply with saved policy GEN1 and T14.

9 - Flood Risk and drainage Saved policy GEN11 states that development in areas liable to flood, will not be permitted, unless appropriate and satisfactory alleviation or mitigation measures are included.

The application site is located within Flood Zone 1 however the site is at risk from ground water and surface water flooding and by virtue of the ground levels, may contribute to surface water flooding with the village.

The proposed sustainable drainage systems for the site include a combination of soakaways, swales, infiltration basins and permeable paving which have been located depending on the relative groundwater depths, underlying soil type and locality of proposed buildings. The proposed development incorporates a large attenuation pond in the lowest lying part of the site, which would store water and enable ground infiltration. In addition, a smaller attenuation pond and swales would be incorporated within the open space at the centre of the development to increase storage capacity and facilitate infiltration.

The views of the Lead Local Flood Authority, the Environment Agency, Thames Water and the Council's Drainage Engineer were sought in respect of the proposal. All but the Environment Agency have responded and after requesting additional information, all the consultees have confirmed that they do not object to the application proposal.

Ground water: The Council's Drainage Officer reviewed the ground water flood risk.

Following a review of borehole data and a topography of the site, the risk of groundwater flooding was deemed lower than that indicated by the Environment Agency historic data and the BGS susceptibility to groundwater flooding. The applicant has proposed some mitigation measures to minimise the residual risk of groundwater flooding including raising finished floor levels by 150mm above surrounding ground levels, sealing foul and surface water drainage networks and fitting non-return valves to the properties to minimise the risk of internal foul flooding.

Given the above mitigation, the Council's Drainage Officer confirmed no objection to the proposal on groundwater flooding grounds.

Surface water: The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) reviewed the surface water flood risk.

Following submission of additional information, the revised calculations show that the proposed surface water drainage runoff rates (4 l/s) would be in excess of the existing runoff rate (Qbar) from the undeveloped site. In the majority of circumstances, this would be unacceptable in relation to the potential for increasing flood risk. Third party consultation responses have drawn attention to serious historic and on-going flooding issues on Redlands Road. The LLFA have confirmed that they are aware of the area downstream of this site on Redlands Lane where there is existing flood risk, which the increase in rates could exacerbate. The LLFA confirm that the Qbar (in the revised calculations) for the existing site is 3.9 l/s, and the developers have demonstrated that they are able to control the drainage runoff rate to 4 l/s. In most situations, a run off rate of up to 5 l/s is acceptable, even if this is an increase from Qbar. This is because, below 5 l/s, it is very difficult to control off site discharge rates.

The LLFA concluded that they would be willing to accept this proposed discharge rate. However, the LLFA state that they would like to see that the developer has liaised with HCC Highways and residents to demonstrate that this very small increase in surface runoff will not increase flood risk downstream/on the local road system.

The developer has provided information during the course of the application regarding the flood risk and based on the guidance from the Council's Drainage Officer and the LLFA, in principle the scheme can suitably mitigate the flood risk. A S278 would be required to untaken the proposed drainage work on the highway and it is at this stage that the LLFA recommends that the applicant works with the Highways Authority and local residents to demonstrate the impact on flood risk. This process could be managed by a Grampian planning condition.

Foul drainage: It is proposed to install a foul gravity sewer which would collect foul water from the development site and would discharge to the existing Thames Water sewer. The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) states that it is not anticipated that a pumping station would be required.

Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this application. A Grampian planning condition is requested by Thames Water to ensure that no discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be accepted into the public system until a drainage strategy detailing any on and/or off site drainage works has been approved and completed. This approach is acceptable in principle.

Third Party comments: A significant amount of the third party/neighbour consultation comments received in relation to the application expressed concern about flood risk, specifically developing the application site would exacerbate local flooding. Both the Council's Drainage Officer and the LLFA are aware of the substantial public concern on the matter and their comments are based on the evidence available at the time of the application.

Based on the evidence before the Council and expert advice, the proposal is considered to provide appropriate measures to mitigate against on and off-site flood risk and therefore complies with saved policy GEN11 and the guidance in the NPPF.

10 - Impact on trees and hedgerows Saved policy CON8 states that where development is proposed which would affect trees, woodlands or hedgerows of significant landscape or amenity value planning permission will only be granted if these features are shown to be capable of being retained in the longer term.

There are a number of trees and hedges near the boundary of the site which are either on or adjoining the application site. A Tree Preservation Order covers trees in the north-eastern corner of the site. The application states that "approximately 95% of the existing boundary treatment would be retained".

The Council's Tree Officer has reviewed the application and has concerns regarding the impact on the off- site trees as a result of the proposed access and road realignment. Limited information has been submitted by the applicant to identify the impacts of the highway improvements to trees and hedges. The supplied arboricultural information relates to the site itself and does not reflect later amendments to the highway.

The proposed changes to highway layout threaten the established highway trees and shrubs on both sides of the road and the true extent of tree removal and pruning is unclear.

The removal of trees and shrub masses to cater for the highway improvement may be harmful to the character of the country lane and therefore due to the uncertainty on the levels of tree/shrub mass removals, the Council's Tree Officer objects to the proposal.

Given the insufficient tree protection details and the potential for substantial hedging and tree lost for the road widening and lack of replacement planting, the proposal would fail to comply with saved policy CON8.

11 - Impact on biodiversity Saved policy CON5 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have a significant adverse effect on plant or animal species or their habitats protected by law unless conditions are attached or planning obligations entered into requiring the developer to secure their protection.

The site has been subject to an ecological assessment by Aspect which included an extended phase 1 habitat survey. The survey concludes that the site has low to moderate ecological value.

The Council's Ecologist has reviewed the application and has confirmed no objections on the grounds of biodiversity subject to the mitigation measures in the Aspect ecology report being implemented in full. The Council's Ecologist also recommended that a detailed ecological management plan is submitted and agreed with the local authority prior to any works, which could be conditioned.

Subject to condition, the proposal would comply with saved policy CON5.

12 - Impact on the SPA Saved local plan policies CON1 and CON2 relate to the Thames Basin Special Protection Area (SPA) and state that development which would adversely affect the nature conservation value of a site will only be permitted if it can be subject to conditions that will prevent damaging impacts on wildlife habitats or other natural features of importance on the site or if other material factors are sufficient to override the nature conservation interest. South East Plan policy NRM6 requires adequate measures to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects on the Thames Basin Special Protection Area (SPA).

The Interim Avoidance Strategy sets out the Council's policy for mitigating the impact on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (TBH SPA) and this included seeking financial contributions towards providing compensatory measures (SANG) to offset that additional pressure. This site is located outside of the 400 metre exclusion zone but within the 5km zone of influence where the proposal would need to secure mitigation. Where the applicant is to secure mitigation through a financial contribution towards the provision of a SANG, ordinarily a S106 would be the most appropriate mechanism, however in April 2015 the pooling of planning obligations was restricted. Specifically Local authorities can no longer pool more than five s106 obligations together (dating back to March 2010) to pay for a single infrastructure project or type of infrastructure. In the avoidance of doubt, this includes contributions towards the provision of SANG although a planning obligation can still be used to secure a contribution towards the Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) project as this is not considered to involve the provision of infrastructure. An alternative method previously used to secure compensatory measures would be a negatively worded condition, or Grampian Condition. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states however that:

"A negatively worded condition limiting the development that can take place until a planning obligation or other agreement has been entered into is unlikely to be appropriate in the majority of cases... However, in exceptional circumstances a negatively worded condition requiring a planning obligation or other agreement to be entered into before certain development can commence may be appropriate in the case of more complex and strategically important development where there is clear evidence that the delivery of the development would otherwise be at serious risk."

The PPG sets out a clear, unambiguous indication that in this instance, a Grampian condition is not an appropriate means of dealing with this issue. The proposal is not a complex and strategically important development, and therefore the exceptional circumstances which would justify the imposition of a Grampian condition do not exist. This means that the mitigation required must be either secured as part of the application or have already been secured which enables the Council to conclude that the proposal does not have a negative impact on the SPA.

In this instance, the applicant has already secured SANG mitigation with the Council and provided a contribution towards the SAMM project which also forms part of the required SPA mitigation. For these reasons, the Council is able to conclude that the proposal does not have a negative impact on the SPA and consequently the proposal is acceptable and in line with policy NRM6 of the South East Plan.

13 - Contaminated land issues Saved policy GEN9 states that proposals for development on land that is, or there is reason to believe may be, contaminated, will be permitted provided that the applicant has carried out and submitted a site survey to establish the nature and extent of the contamination which, together with the sensitivity of the proposed use to the contamination, other environmental implications and the effectiveness of the proposed remedial measures do not put the development and its users at risk.

The Phase 1 'Preliminary Risk Assessment' report submitted with the application concluded that whilst risks of land contamination are likely to be low, further verification sampling is required.

The Council's Environmental Health team are satisfied that this could be secured via condition in compliance with saved policy GEN9.

14 - Other issues This section covers the principal matters raised in the letters of representation/consultee comments which have not been covered elsewhere in the report.

Loss of agricultural land Concern has been raised regarding the loss of agricultural land for housing. The applicant has not provided an agricultural land classification report. The NPPF paragraph 112 states 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 a higher quality". Given that the loss of land would be relatively small when viewed in the context of the amount of agricultural land in the district it is considered that this loss would be acceptable. Natural England have confirmed that they do not object to the loss of this land.

Utilities A utilities assessment has been provided with the application which states that all mains services are present in the village.

Local facilities Comments have been received from local residents regarding a lack of capacity in local schools, nursery schools and doctors surgeries. It is acknowledged that there is likely to be an increase in capacity for local services as a result of the proposed dwellings. Given the amount of housing proposed this increase would be modest and, in the absence of any specific evidence (rather than anecdotal), no additional provision/contributions would be required.

Potential for other applications Concern has been raised that this application could create a president for development around Crondall, however all applications must be determined on their own merits.

Loss of private view This is not a material planning consideration.

Reduction in property values This is not a material planning consideration.

Whether, having regard to the suggested benefits and disbenefits of the proposal, and the Council's five- year supply of deliverable housing sites, it would represent a sustainable form of development

The fact that the development of this site conflicts with the policies of the development plan is a start point for consideration but one then has to weigh up other material considerations and assess any harm against the benefits that would be derived from the development, taking account of the three stands of sustainable development as set out in the paragraph 7 of the NPPF.

In terms of the benefits, the scheme would deliver additional housing, both market and affordable in line with the NPPF's aim of significantly boosting the supply of such, this benefit must be given substantial weight. The site also brings forward areas of new open space and play areas which are benefits which should also be given some weight. The Government has made clear its view that house building plays an important role in promoting economic growth. In economic terms, the schemes would provide construction jobs and some local investment during its build out. These jobs and investment would be transitory, and in this regard moderate weight should be afforded.

The scheme however would result in unacceptable harm to the character of the local area, including the nearby Conservation Area. The scheme would potentially result in harm to visually prominent tress and would potentially result in the loss of a substantial amount of hedging with no mitigation proposed to offset this harm. Furthermore the lack of a planning obligation means that there is no mechanism to secure the affordable housing, off-site highways improvements or open space mitigation.

Placing all factors and all of the relevant material considerations in the balance, the assessment is that the adverse impacts of the proposed development significantly outweigh the benefits and it is therefore unacceptable.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development would conflict with relevant development plan policies in a number of respects. The proposal would be likely to cause harm to the character of the area and setting of the Crondall Conservation Area. The proposal would be of a poor design, taking no account of the character of the local area. The scheme would potentially result in harm to visually prominent tress and would potentially result in the loss of a substantial amount of hedging with no mitigation proposed to offset this harm. Furthermore the lack of a planning obligation means that there is no mechanism to secure the affordable housing, off-site highways improvements or open space mitigation.

As such, the proposal is considered to be unacceptable. Refusal is, therefore, recommended.

RECOMMENDATION – Refer to Full Council with a recommendation to refuse permission.

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1 The combined impact of the overall scale and suburban character/layout/design/landscaping would result in unacceptable harm to the rural character of the local area, and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and setting of the Crondall Conservation Areas. Therefore the proposal fails to comply with saved policies GEN1, GEN3, GEN4, CON13 and CON23 in the adopted Hart District Local Plan, section 66 (1) and 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the guidance in the NPPF.

2 In the absence of sufficient/accurate tree and hedge protection details, it is not possible to determine, with any degree of certainty, that the proposed tree/hedge removal would be acceptable or whether the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the health of the retained trees on the site/adjoining the site. The loss of theses trees and hedge would have an adverse impact on the character of the area. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policy CON8 in the adopted Hart District Local Plan.

3 The proposed development does not make adequate provision for the provision of affordable housing. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policy ALTGEN13 in the adopted Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006.

4 The proposed development does not make adequate provision for on-site public open space. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policy URB23 in the adopted Hart District Local Plan.

5 The proposed development would fail to secure off-site highways improvements to the detriment of highway safety and contrary to saved policies GEN1 and T14 in the adopted Hart District Local Plan and the guidance in the NPPF.

INFORMATIVES

1 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance:

 The applicant was advised of the necessary information needed to process the application.

Appendix A

Crondall Parish Council Comments.

Appendix A to application 16/02377/FUL:

Crondall Parish Council Comments.

Crondall Parish Council PO Box 623

Farnham Surrey GU9 1HB

Contact: Mary Harris Telephone: 07510 917232 e-mail: [email protected]

Ref: 16/02377/FUL

Date: 23 March 2017 By E-mail

Ms Christine Tetlow Planning Officer Hart District Council

Dear Ms Tetlow

RE: 16/02377/FUL Broden Stables, Crondall: Highways “Option 2” Consultation

Crondall Parish Council met on 20th March 2017 to consider the revised highways proposals, that you kindly invited further consultation upon. The Parish Council was generally disappointed with the proposed “Option 2” carriageway changes. Specifically:-

 There is a strong feeling that all parties have made more than reasonable efforts over an extended timescale to find a workable design and that a continued “piecemeal” approach risks an unsustainable design that fails to adequately define, consider and weigh the impact. The fundamental issues with this highways proposal underlines that situation and its impracticality.

 The proposal creates an extremely long and blind single track road with only an informal passing place. This defies common sense and a basic approach to road safety. Far from this development contributing towards improved infrastructure, the reduced road width and contrived arrangement unacceptably achieves exactly the opposite.

 The splays defined in the drawing are simply not practical. The original of the lines is taken to represent the eye-line and position of a driver seeking to turn out of the development. However, at an eye-line height of 1.05m a driver would be unable to see along the road because of the retained banks on either side of the entrance. The “Option 2” drawing actually shows the sight-lines passing “through” the bank, if examined carefully.

 The proposed works to the southern bank would kill many of the trees currently present and will require a urban style retaining wall which is entirely inappropriate in such a rural lane. The northern hedgerow would be completely removed and also require a retaining wall to keep the field back.

 The extension of the road over the northern verge creates a considerable risk to the buried drainage pipe.

 The 1m wide pavement is impracticably narrow; an acceptable gradient to rise to the level of the development would require an additional “cut” through the bank, re-location of the pond and an extended sunken ramp. Two people would struggle to pass, let alone prams or wheel chair users.

Overall it is an unacceptable piece of design that fails basic analysis and defies common sense. However, it also fails published design standards and guides. This contrived design underlines the unsuitability of this site for development of this nature.

Crondall Parish Council Page 1 of 9

16/02377/FUL Broden Stables, Crondall 23 March 2017 Additional Highways Consultation

The points above are fully demonstrated in the diagrams and pictures which form the Annexes attached. Furthermore without prejudice to any final decision, should Hart be minded to approve, additional suggested conditions and amendments presented in Annex C should be implemented.

Additionally the Parish Council notes that the application provides no planning gain or makes any S106/CIL contributions. We would urge Hart to consider such issue in the light of the previously provide list of projects (letter dated: 2th August 2015 – copy provided), this will be updated in light of our ongoing Neighbourhood Plan activities.

Yours sincerely,

Mary Harris Clerk, Crondall Parish Council As directed by the meeting of 20 March 2017

CC. Cllr S Gorys, Hart District Council

Crondall Parish Council Page 2 of 9

16/02377/FUL Broden Stables, Crondall 23 March 2017 Crandall Additional Highways Consultation Parish Council

Annex A: Annotated Drawing (Option 2)

I 1 OY&r2!>5m or Slnglo I Dnlln p!pe would lane road. w•h poor sopht ? ... noOpod OUIIO ' ace rood, wtlh ' ' (utbantsed) relalmng wall added ' '

6 Trae roots not cons1dared

5 Cwb e:ncroaches protecled 1'00( wne or ret

• 8 1m Wide "cudtng' through ·,.. -.. -,. -. • -_-,.,.._ ... .. bank w1l be lmprBCtJcaland 1 . -...... l.lfi'*Jhlly ""' _... ------

9 No e.qJlanabon or how the pelh

pesses the "pond" (not 5hO'M1"'lilt!> drawong) end nses to OlO hOIQht ol1tle d!Mitopmont whol9 SIJtlalowifl9 p.rams .... and whael t ha•rs to .-.gate II ...... 1t Steeply ra•sed bar* prevents lip (l)llS.Uitlfl!! I the bemg h-a e '\llOWI'I ...... _.._i •na W

Cronda/1 Parish Council Page 3of9 16/02377/FUL Broden Stables, Crondall 23 March 2017 Additional Highways Consultation

Annex B: - Detailed Comments

B1: General

1) Excessive Cooperation. While the duty to cooperate with developers is understood and appreciated, the extended consultation, re-works, re-submission of the various parts of this application has become excessive and amounts to an unfair process. With a wide range of critical details being uncovered at each stage, the design has evolved in a piecemeal fashion. The developer has had numerous opportunities to conduct proper surveys and submit properly considered and coherent designs, but the history of this application has become a slowly evolving, extended design exercise at public expense. Hart, HCC and numerous other consultees have been drawn into writing this design for the developer through successive rounds of discussion.

2) Disjointed design. The approach avoids all the issues and disadvantages being properly considered together and generates an overly-optimistic view of the balances that need to be drawn, as each issue is considered in isolation and a sub-optimal solution proposed. Thus the application evolves in a fragmentary manner, where the impact of new “solutions” is not set in the context of the other design changes.

3) Fantasy design. The full impact of some design features (especially impact on trees) are not being properly considered at this stage, resulting in a fantasy design that cannot be built as shown, yet these issues would weigh heavily against any decision to grant. In particular the revised road layout implies the destruction of the root system of many existing trees and the wholesale removal of ancient hedgerows.

4) Unsustainable location. One of several fundamental problems with this site is illustrated by the road safety audit and proposed “Option 2” highway design. In essence: the road is too narrow to accommodate a footpath and workable give-way section, while the alterative would eliminate the footpath and completely undermine any safe access to the site on foot. The problem underlines how unsuitable the site is due to access issues, as has been stated since the initial pre-application discussions. (See Hart pre-application response, section6, para 10, bullet point 4 dated 4 Feb 2016 and CPC comments 3rd October 2016 letter).

5) Loss of Infrastructure. The proposed reduction of the carriageway to a single track road represents a loss of infrastructures. This is contrary to NPPF paras: 7 (provision of infrastructure associated with development), 21 (infrastructure provision, not removal), 31 (supporting welfare of the road user), 41 (identify and protect route to enhance transport choice),157 (planning positively for infrastructure – not special adaptions for a single site).

B2: Technical

6) Impractical single-track road. The proposed design creates a single-track road approximately 255m long (to further western exit by bridge beyond the bend) with a small passing place opposite the entrance to the existing surgery. a) Hart will need to consult with HCC Highways about the legality of such a long single-track road. But the prima-face case of impracticability is obvious. The creation of single-track road where the ends are not visible to approaching drivers certainly fails the design standards applied in other counties: 40m in the Kent design standards 1(p127 for minor access roads) and 60m in South-Ayrshire Roads Development Guide (section 5.3.4)2 with the specific requirement that passing places are “inter- visible”. South-Ayrshire also recommend a minimum road width of 3.5m (section 4.8.3)

1 “Kent Design ‘creating the design, 2006’” copy included with this letter 2 “Roads Development Guide - South Ayrshire Council” link

Crondall Parish Council Page4of 9

16/02377/FUL Broden Stables, Crondall 23 March 2017 Additional Highways Consultation

b) The informal “passing place” (assumed opposite Redlands Cottage) is too short to accommodate any large vehicles (eg refuse trucks, delivery vehicles servicing the residents). It is also frequently blocked by refuse bins and parked cars. Other counties quote 11-17m length (3 cars) (eg. Bird Lane, Essex reduced to 20mph zone).

c) Access from the western end is completely blind, with the informal passing place often blocked with bins and parked cars.:-

d) The introduction of the extended single-track section will significantly reduce the capacity of the road for through traffic.

e) This piece of road is frequently used by horse riders who would struggle to move through the narrow section quickly, causing frustration of waiting drivers that leads to unreasonable, selfish and dangerous behaviours.

Crondall Parish Council Page5of 9

16/02377/FUL Broden Stables, Crondall 23 March 2017 Additional Highways Consultation

7) Construction Access. While not normally a decision criteria, the limitations of the narrow road also highlights the difficultly with accessing the site during construction and the need for great care to avoid blocking the road entirely.

8) Visibility Splays Impractical. With a defined driver eye height of 1.05m3, the splays as shown are not geometrically possible. The original of the sight lines shown of the diagram, would be behind the edge of the banking, preventing clear sight along the road. a) The photograph (below) shows the shape of the bank at the entrance and the graphic illustrates the geometry, with actual measurements taken on 21/3/17. The Eye Line Origin is also highlighted in Annex B.

9) Bank Works Kill Trees. (Location G and others) The proposal assumes some work to the bank to cut through for the pedestrian and site access. However, the plans do not show the very severe impact on the trees and their protected root areas. a) The HCC standard4 for ground works, requires a protected area 12x trunk diameter (measured @ 1.5m above the ground). The proposed works to the southern roadside (the raised bank) make no

3 Hobbs- Traffic planning and engineering; Pergammon Press, 1974 4 HCC standard: HCC10C155A

Crondall Parish Council Page6of 9

16/02377/FUL Broden Stables, Crondall 23 March 2017 Additional Highways Consultation

assessment of this. Based on actual measurements taken on 21/3/17, the protected root zones of major trees are shown below. The proposal fails to address or consider these effects which will significantly harm these mature trees. At the very least, significant specification and care will be required to build over and around them. In some cases (eg. the pavement cut through) the works will kill the tree. In many cases the practical manifestation of the works would remove all roots on the road side and replace them with a wall over 1m high!

b) A real design will encroach further into the protected root zone of other trees, effectively killing them at the time of building or a short while later. This is de-facto tree-removal by stealth. This issue applies across the site, where such narrow areas are being “pared” away to accommodate an unworkable scheme.

10) Ripping Out the Hedgerows. Location B: the proposed solution requires the removal of all trees, hedging and digging out the northern verge. The plan shows the road being extended to the north, right up to the fence line. This can only be achieved by removing the trees and hedging and installing a retaining wall to prevent the field sliding into the road. Such a wall is an urban feature and not in keeping with a rural lane.

Crondall Parish Council Page7of 9

16/02377/FUL Broden Stables, Crondall 23 March 2017 Additional Highways Consultation

11) Heavy Vehicles Over Weak Drains. The northern verge has a large surface drainage pipe running under it, taking water from further up Redlands Lane down to the river. Any such works would need to include a careful check of that pipe and probable upgrade as it was laid without being designed for crossing traffic. There are several manholes along that verge, all of which would need to be lowered, re- built and strengthened. This applies all along the northern verge.

12) Surgery Entrance Splays Difficult to Improve. (Location F) Any work to adjust the surgery splay will also have to move the service/telegraph pole. A similar problem also occurs due to the bank, although it is a little lower at this point.

13) Retaining Wall for Pavement. A retaining wall would be required to retain the bank (southern side) next to the pavement, which is an urban, not a rural feature. This wall would be up to 1.3m tall at some points, implying significant foundations and structural features (and safety calculation) to implement it. Any such strengthening features (eg, buttresses or pillars) will need to be internal to the wall to prevent loss of width in the under-sized footway. Note: that the footway could not achieve a “rise” while in the roadway, unless railings were fitted, reducing either the footway width or roadway and a protective kerb would be required to prevent vehicles striking the raised footpath.

14) High Risk of Pavement Over-Run. The pavement has a very high risk of being over-run at this location as vehicles battle to pass each other. The addition of bollards would further reduce the width of an impractical 1m wide footway proposal.

15) Pavement too narrow. A 1m wide pavement is only marginally wider than a domestic door. Two people passing will have to edge round each other, while prams and wheel chairs would need decide their own priorities. 2m is the normal minimum recommended width for footways (see Manual for Streets5, section 6.3.22)

16) Pavement Routeing Not Practical. The footway will need to cut through the bank and rise to the height of the development, a gain of around 1.3m. A gradient of 1:12 is the maximum given in the British Standards. In practice this gradient is too steep for many people, particularly older people and wheelchair users with limited upper body strength, hence 1:20 is preferred and generally quoted in design standards. This implies a path length of around 26m, which is not considered in the design (currently its location is blocked by the “pond”). But even as the path rose inside the development, it would be below the upper ground level for much of the time, with the defined width of 1m, it is clearly impractical.

5 “Manual for Streets”, HMG (DCLG, DfT), 2007 (ISBN: 978-0-7277-3501-0)

Crondall Parish Council Page8of 9

16/02377/FUL Broden Stables, Crondall 23 March 2017 Additional Highways Consultation

Annex C: – Additional Conditions

In the event that Hart was minded to approve, the following additional conditions are requested (further to those of our letter of 3rd October 2016):

 Survey and confirm the suitability of the drain on the northern road edge to support road traffic, if necessary replace with a robust drainage system (including access points for cleaning and catch- pits). This is to ensure that the drain (originally laid in the verge) is not collapsed by passing traffic and can function with minimal intervention.

 Review the impact on the trees from the proposed carriageway works and mitigate destruction of mature specimens.

 Detailed drawings for the entire revised scheme to ensure the gradients and practicality of the proposal.

 A detailed Construction Method Statement to address access and egress from the site during construction with large vehicles in this tiny road. In particular, deliveries must avoid busy times eg. the morning and afternoon school runs. Deliveries must move quickly off Redlands Lane to ensure it is not blocked.

 A revised planting scheme to replace any trees removed during construction.

 Proposed planning gains or S106/CIL contributions.

Crondall Parish Council Page9of 9

Crondall Parish Council Daryl Phillips PO Box 623 Chief Executive Farnham Hart District Council Surrey The Harlington Centre GU9 1HB Fleet

Contact: Mary Harris By e-mail Telephone: 07510 917232 e-mail: [email protected] Reference: CPC HDC Amenities

Date: 12th August 2015

Dear Daryl,

CRONDALL PARISH COUNCIL – AMENITY PRIORITIES

In early 2014 members of Crondall Parish Council met with Robert Jackson and his planning department colleagues to seek guidance on the appropriate response of the Parish Council to ‘developers’ who wished to discuss their planning proposals for the village with the Council, prior to a planning application being submitted. The meeting was helpful in clarifying the Council’s role and was instrumental in setting out a future desire for the Council in terms of identifying local priorities for the residents of the Parish, such that should Section 106 or CIL monies become available Hart would have an available list of Parish priorities.

During the remainder of 2014 and early 2015 the Parish Council were focused on day to day business and the installation of a splendid new children’s’ playground for which we were delighted to receive some Section 106 funding through Hart. With the playground completed and planning applications coming forward on a regular basis Council has recently re-considered the establishment of a priority amenity list for presentation to Hart, as it was noted the current CIL/S106 documents appear to not include a list of suitable projects for the Parish (based on the “nil” list of projects for Crondall, see page 33 of Hart’s Planning Obligations (S106 Agreements) – Principles And Priorities September 2014).

The Parish Amenity Consultation was widely advertised on the Council’s website, through the councillors’ local contact networks and by posters throughout the village. A straightforward questionnaire was available for any who wished to complete it asking broad questions such as ‘what issues for the village concern you most’. Everyone was encouraged to take part in the consultation and to think as widely as they wished. In addition an afternoon/evening session was held in the village where local parishioners could meet and discuss their ideas with councillors and view a presentation which brought together some ideas which had already been raised by councillors. The results of

Crondall Parish Council Page 1 of 3

the whole exercise were summarised and considered at our meeting of 27th July 2015. We therefore present these to you as priorities for Hart’s future consideration.

 Traffic calming and control measures, specifically:- o Substantive discouragement of through traffic, especially commercial and HGVs – e.g, width restriction (entrance to Pankridge St). This is in agreement with “Hart District Council Infrastructure Delivery Schedule Appendices October 2014”, APPENDIX 14, item: L107. o Easing safety for pedestrians on Dippenhall Street, e.g. a different surface/colour to delineate a walking area. o Selected speed tables (NOT humps): Well Road playground exit and Dip- penhall village boundary .

 Improved parking e.g. consider o Corner of Hook Meadow o Piping over Croft Lane ditch to establish “chevron” parking area

 Future Burial Plot

 More dog poo bins and rubbish bins

 Contribution to the renovation and maintenance of All Saints church

In addition to the above we would wish to reiterate some of the points made in the Council’s formal response to the 2011 – 2032 Local Plan ‘Options’ consultation, where Council looked at the potential effects of additional development, the mitigation of which may be possible as the result of judicious use of Section 106 or CIL funding.

 There are few if any employment opportunities in Crondall. Almost every additional dwelling would be occupied, either by one or more commuters (generating further traffic, carbon emissions, general pollution etc.) or by retired folk.

 Crondall has an extensive and important Conservation Area and many listed buildings, all liable to be degraded by the additional traffic, parking etc. generated by any significant development.

 Crondall suffers from frequent flooding and sewage problems (to the extent that it has seen the need for an active Flood Action Group) which any inappropriate or con- centrated development may only exacerbate.

The Parish Council is aware that the numbers taking part in the recent consultation were limited and it is planned in future to return to the above list of priorities in order to undertake a more focused consultation exercise. However in the meantime we ask that

Crondall Parish Council Page 2 of 3

you formally record the above priorities for any Section 106 or CIL discussions and allocations.

We should be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this letter. Should you have any further queries in regard to its content please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Mary C Harris

Clerk to Crondall Parish Council

Crondall Parish Council Page 3 of 3

COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 102 APPLICATION NO. 16/02989/OUT LOCATION Land At Odiham Road Riseley Reading Berkshire PROPOSAL Outline application for the development of up to 83 residential dwellings, vehicular access from Odiham Road, public open space, ancillary works and associated infrastructure on land off Odiham Road, Riseley. All matters reserved except for access. APPLICANT Ms Rachel Scott CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 26 January 2017 APPLICATION EXPIRY 3 February 2017 WARD RECOMMENDATION The application be referred to Full Council with a recommendation that the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to grant permission subject to the prior completion of an appropriate legal agreement

Crondall Parish Council Page 2 of 3

Illustrative Site Layout Plans

Proposed Access Plan

liiW:I • ,. \ ... . ., \ /

.1'

/ ·

lAm • S9m VlloiiiiUTY!#lAY lllmiAI'OlATtO ( \ \ '{ \ ,.:;: \ '. \ \

BACKGROUND

This application is referred to the Planning Committee as it represents a departure from the Local Plan because it promotes development outside of any settlement boundary as defined in the Plan. Consequently the proposed development is contrary to Saved Policy RUR2.

This is an Outline application for the development of 83 dwellings, with vehicular access from the Odiham Road, with all other matters to be reserved.

Associated application 16/03398/FUL Land at Odiham Road, Riseley seeks change of use of land to a Suitable Accessible Natural Green space (SANG) and shall be linked to this scheme via a Unilateral Undertaking but determined separately.

The recommendation is that the application should be referred to Full Council with a recommendation that the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to grant permission subject to the prior completion of an appropriate legal agreement.

THE SITE The site is an irregular shaped area of land measuring approximately 3.8 hectares. It is enclosed to the west by existing woodland, to the north by the settlement of Riseley, to the east by woodland and to the south by the Basingstoke Road. The land is currently used for grazing and arable farmland.

The site is enclosed on all sides by vegetation and in addition by built development to the north. In terms of topography, the site is fairly flat and level.

The nearest residential area, situated to the north, is suburban in nature and comprises of a combination of detached and semi-detached houses and bungalows with the character generally two storey.

The site falls within Flood Zone 1 (at low risk of flooding) according to the Environment Agency flood map. There are no water courses or springs within the site, nor within the immediate vicinity.

PROPOSAL The application is for 83 dwellings over a residential area which measures 3.8 ha representing a gross density of just under 22 dwellings per hectare. This figure allows for the fact that within the site there is sustainable urban drainage features landscape buffers around the edges of the site and areas of open space.

40% of the proposed housing is proposed to be affordable. The accommodation mix for the site would deliver a range of housing types, from 1 bedroom flats to 3 bedroom houses with the following breakdown:

Market Affordable Total 1 bed 0 6 6 2 bed 13 18 31 3 bed 21 8 29 4 bed 16 1 17 Total 50 33 83

The application is linked to application ref 16/03398/FUL an area of Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspace (SANG) which is 11.4ha in area.

48 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 87/15514/ OUT- Land North of Swallowfield by-pass - REFUSED 87/15515/OUT - Land north of Swallowfield by-pass - REFUSED

CONSULTEES RESPONSES

Swallowfield Parish Council – OBJECTION

The Town Council strongly objects to the above application for the following reasons: -The proposal is outside of the Riseley settlement boundary in open countryside where there is a presumption against development. - Site has poor sustainability credentials

Housing Land Supply and Site Allocation: -The site is neither allocated nor on the reserve housing list and other sites could be developed which would result in less impact. -Demand for housing in Hart District has reduced as allocations between districts have changed -The application should be assessed in the broader context of its adverse impact on Wokingham Borough Spatial Policy and infrastructure plans.

Poor Sustainability Credentials: -High level of car ownership and the site is in a rural location poorly served by public transport. -Local schools are not located within walking / cycling distance nor are buses available for use. -Local employment opportunities are very poor with many people commuting out of the area.

Lack of Co - ordinated and Supporting Infrastructure: Wokingham Borough Councils infrastructure plans do not allow for any substantive development in Swallowfield or Riseley. Swallowfield Parish has already had to accommodate significantly more than its allocation of new homes through recent approvals at the Willows and the Business Park.

Highways and Transport: - Significant increase in the number of people needing to use public transport to reach work, retail and leisure facilities - Speeding on Odiham and Basingstoke Roads causing problems for pedestrians and other road users.

Site Access: -The access is not well placed for the number of vehicles that will be accessing the site and in consideration of the amount of passing traffic. Local junctions are incredibly busy at peak times

Flood Risk: -There is concern that the development will adversely affect the amount of water run off into the already inadequate drainage system aggravating further local flooding issues. -SUDS basins commonly used have very limited effect on the retention and slow release of water.

Affordable Housing: -The introduction of smaller and affordable housing on this proposed development would be out of character for the village. There is a need for smaller housing units in the area. However, this is already catered for by other approved schemes.

49 Open Space and Ecology: -The development would remove a valuable area of open space on the southern boundary of the village giving identity and transition from built form to open countryside. - Concern relating to Dormice, important wildlife corridor, reptile survey contradicts work undertaken by BRAG (Berkshire Reptile and Amphibian Group) and light pollution.

Mitigation and financial contributions: Contributions sought towards, Highways and Transport and Leisure facilities.

Heckfield Parish Council – OBJECTION

-Objects on highways grounds with additional cumulative impact of traffic from other developments adding to capacity during peak travel times and associated queueing. -The site is outside of the settlement boundary -Lack of amenities -Concern over site access and vehicular movements at peak times.

Leisure Services – NO OBJECTION

No objection.

Hampshire County Council (Education Officer) – NO OBJECTION

The proposed development of 83 dwellings is expected to generate a total of 25 additional primary age children (4 per year group) and 17 secondary age children (3 per year group). This is based on a figure of 0.3 primary age children per new dwelling and 0.21 secondary age which, was derived by conducting demographic surveys of developments that have been completed within Hampshire and calculating the average number of primary and secondary age children on those developments.

A contribution towards the expansion of Whitewater Primary School is not required but a contribution towards the expansion of Robert Mays Secondary School is necessary because the school is currently at capacity and without the planned expansion by 2019 it will not be able to accommodate the children from your development. The level of contribution being sought is based on the number of children expected to be living on the development and the actual cost of accommodating these children at the school and therefore is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

County Rights of Way Group – NO OBJECTION

The proposal will affect Heckfield Footpath 501 which runs along the northern boundary of the site. The proposal shows the retention of the right of way within a green corridor which would help to retain the amenity and biodiversity value of the route.

Plans include the of the western end of the right of way as an emergency access - we would expect to see suitable access controls in place, such as lockable bollards. Alteration of the surface of the right of way will also require permission.

50 Natural England – NO OBJECTION

No objection.

Hampshire County Council Lead Local Flood Authority – NO OBJECTION

The general principles for the surface water drainage proposals are acceptable, we would recommend that further information on the proposals be submitted as part of the more detailed design phase.

County Archaeologist – NO OBJECTION

No objection subject to conditions.

Housing – NO OBJECTION

No objection - subject to suitable legal agreement.

Environmental Health – NO OBJECTION

No Objection subject to a standard contaminated land condition.

Tree Officer – NO OBJECTION

No objection subject to Tree Protection Plan.

Highways (Internal) – NO OBJECTION

No objection subject to suitable travel pack submission and s278 works secured via legal agreement.

Wokingham Borough Council – NO OBJECTION

No Objection subject to consideration of sustainability and transport implications

NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS 155 letters of objection received with the following comments:

* No local schools and road networks are already over capacity * Loss of green space and natural habitats * Neighbouring properties could be flooded * Inadequate public transport * Traffic problems * Outside of the settlement boundary * Impact on drainage systems and local flooding * Impact on wildlife * Loss of character to village of Riseley * Pedestrian mobility and accessibility

51 POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES Public rights of way are legally highways and anyone may use them at any time. However, there are different types. The public can walk on all of them, but some have extra rights to ride a horse, cycle or drive a vehicle. There are legal tests that have to be satisfied and procedures that have to be gone through before a way can be said to be a public right of way or before a right of way can be created, diverted or closed.

The development lies within 2km of the Thames Basins Heath Special Protection Area (SPA). This is an area that has been identified as being of international importance for the breeding, feeding, wintering or the migration of rare and vulnerable species of birds found within European Union countries. They are European designated sites, classified under the ‘Birds Directive 1979’ which provides enhanced protection given by the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) status all SPAs also hold. New residential development in particular must be strictly controlled within areas up to 5km from SPA's unless appropriate mitigation strategies have been put in place.

Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 - 2006

RUR2 - Development in open countryside General RUR3 - Development in open countryside Control GEN1 - General policy for development GEN11 - Areas affected by flooding-poor drainage ALTG13 - Affordable Housing CON1 - Nature Conservation European Designations CON2 - Nature Conservation Designations CON5 - Nature conservation Species Protected CON8 - Trees, Woods & Hedgerows Amenity Value CON13 - Conservation Areas General Policy CON22 - Setting of Settlements and Recreation T14 - Transport and Development T16 - Improvements Made Necessary by Dev South East Plan 2006 - 2026 NRM6 - Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

CONSIDERATIONS

Main issues

1 Principle of development 2 Design and impact on the character of the local area 3 Impact on neighbour amenity 4 Housing mix 5 Parking provision, access and highway safety 6 Flood Risk and drainage 7 Impact on biodiversity

52 8 Impact on trees 9 Impact on archaeology 10 Contaminated land issues 11 Climate change 12 SPA/ SANG 13 Community Infrastructure

Principle of development The purpose of the planning system is to help achieve sustainable development and applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Current Government guidance, contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), confirms that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental.

In the light of the matters outlined above the main issues are:

a) whether the Council is able to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites; b) whether the development plan is absent, silent or out-of-date; a) Can the Council demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites?

53 The Council can therefore demonstrate in excess of a five-year supply of deliverable housing land, which means that paragraph 49 of the Framework is not engaged. As such, it is the Council's position that development plan policies relevant to the supply of housing should not be considered out-of-date by reference to this matter.

The Council has a 5 year housing land supply so paragraph 49 of the NPPF is not engaged and therefore the housing supply policies are not deemed to be out of date for this reason.

54 It is however considered that the NPPF recognises that it is appropriate for the development plan to include policies which are clear on "what will or will not be permitted and where" (para 154) and that the Local Plan should "identify land where development would be inappropriate" (para 157). Obviously, this will be done by negatively worded policies where development is not to be permitted or is inappropriate. There are also several policies in the NPPF which set out a negative approach to harmful development (such as isolated homes in the countryside (para 55) or where there is poor design (para 64) or the loss of open space (para 74) or conflict with a neighbourhood plan (para 198)) and it is considered that the Inspector's assessment in the Moulsham Lane case over-simplified the stance taken by the NPPF to development in the countryside.

The weight to be applied to policy RUR2 should therefore be proportionate. The fact that the development of the application site conflicts with the housing policies of the development plan is a starting point for consideration with the next step to weigh up other material considerations and assess any harm against the benefits that would be derived from the development, taking account of the three stands of sustainable development as set out in the paragraph 7 of the NPPF. It is therefore appropriate to consider the effect of the development in terms of the overall planning balance with the benefits of the scheme, in terms of boosting housing supply and particularly affordable housing provision, in a relatively sustainable location on the edge of the rural village within the District weighed against any material harm. This balancing exercise shall be undertaken in the conclusion of this report to assess whether it is acceptable to develop this site for housing.

Design and impact on the character of the local area Saved policy GEN1 states that development should be in keeping with the local character by virtue of their scale, design, massing, height and materials.

Saved policy CON22 states that development which would adversely affect the character or setting of a settlement, or lead to the loss of important areas of the development of open land around settlements, will not be permitted where it would: i) Obscure typical views of the settlement from public vantage points; ii) Obstruct significant public views our of the settlement; iii) Result in the loss of 'green fingers' important to the structure and amenity of the settlement; or iv) Otherwise have a serious adverse effect on the character or setting of the settlement.

55 Saved policy CON23 states that development will not be permitted which would seriously detract from the amenity and consequent recreational value of well-used footpaths and other public rights of way in the countryside close to main settlements by reducing their rural character or detracting from significant views.

Section 7 of the NPPF: 'Requiring good design' paragraph 56 states that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

Along the boundary of the site, screening is maintained and the housing set well back from it; these properties will only be accessible from within the development, meaning that the existing vegetated boundary will remain intact retaining as best is possible the rural feel and landscape barrier.

The proposed development responds to the shape, topography, and open and green character of the site. It also responds to the existing suburban development to the north.

It is considered that the proposed layout is well thought out and delivers the balance between making best use of the land and responding to the site specific issues.

Impact on neighbour amenity Saved policy GEN1 (iii) permits development where there is no material loss of amenity to existing and adjoining residential uses.

The application site borders the southern settlement boundary of Riseley. The houses to the north side of the application site are generally detached and semi-detached properties. These properties are set back and separated from the application site by a landscape belt and this distance is sufficient to ensure against any harmful material loss of amenity through overlooking or loss of light.

A number of objectors have raised the issue of additional noise and disturbance from the application site and the increase in traffic along adjoining roads. In response to this all traffic will leave the site onto Odiham Road. This will ensure that there is no detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbours through noise and disturbance.

Therefore it is considered that the proposal would not result in any unacceptable harm to neighbour amenity so would comply with saved policy GEN1.

Housing Mix Saved policy ALT GEN13 of the Hart District Local Plan seeks the provision of 40% of housing on this site to be affordable. This application would provide 39.7% affordable housing; the Council's Housing Officer is content with the housing mix provided and the location of the affordable dwellings within the scheme. The affordable housing can be secured through the legal agreement.

The proposal provides for 6 x 1 bed (8%), 60 x 2 and 3 bed (72%), and 17 x 4+ bed (20%). In terms of the ratio of smaller units (1 to 3 beds) to larger units, these figures are generally consistent with the need. The balance in favour of 2 and 3 bedroom unit at the expense of 1 bedroom units is dictated by the character of the area (houses), the location on the edge of the settlement and the relatively low density of development proposed. The required mix would be District wide and would not necessarily need to be achieved on a site by site basis.

Therefore this mix is considered acceptable in this instance.

56 Parking provision, access and highway safety Saved policy GEN1 (vii) permits development which has adequate arrangements on site for access, servicing or the parking of vehicles. Saved policy T14 states that development must have adequate provision for highway safety, access and internal layout and parking.

The Local Highway Authority, has confirmed that there is no highway objection to the development. Nevertheless, a number of objectors have raised concern about the increase in traffic.

Whilst the proposed development will result in an increase in traffic on the highway network, this will mainly be on the main road network in the vicinity.

The internal road width is sufficient for refuse, service and emergency vehicle access.

If the Hart District Council's parking standards are applied, then the site falls within zone 3 (least accessible). Generally speaking, the layout appears satisfactory in terms of parking and the indicated parking spaces are all located within a reasonable distance to the dwellings that they serve. The incorporation of cycle and bin storage can be provided at the design stage.

Therefore it is considered that there would be sufficient access, turning and parking facilities for the proposed development. As such the development would comply with saved policies GEN1 and T14.

Flood Risk and drainage Saved policy GEN11 states that development in areas liable to flood, will not be permitted, unless appropriate and satisfactory alleviation or mitigation measures are included. The application site lies within Flood Zone 1 therefore is acceptable for development.

The proposed architectural layout has been designed to provide three natural looking attenuation basins to the east of the site. These basins have been designed to be interconnected with large pipes that do not restrict flow between the basins.

Hampshire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority consider the water drainage proposals acceptable and recommend that further information on the proposals be submitted as part of the Reserved Matters stage.

These solutions appear acceptable in principle and further detailed drainage information can be secured by a condition.

Biodiversity Saved policy CON5 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have a significant adverse effect on plant or animal species or their habitats protected by law unless conditions are attached or planning obligations entered into requiring the developer to secure their protection.

The site is comprised predominantly of Semi-improved Grassland, Lines of Trees with Scrub, Hedgerow, Off-site Woodland. Where ecological value was identified potential habitats are to remain.

There was no evidence of protected species on the site, subject to care taken during the course of development, there should be no impact on protected species.

A condition to secure the recommendations and enhancements made in the ecology report is sufficient to ensure that the proposal would comply with saved policy CON5.

57 Impact on trees Saved policy CON8 states that where development is proposed which would affect trees, woodlands or hedgerows of significant landscape or amenity value planning permission will only be granted if these features are shown to be capable of being retained in the longer term.

The proposal results in a loss of a few trees to facilitate the vehicular entrance. None of these trees are considered significant in the wider context and therefore the tree officer has no objection subject to a suitable tree protection plan.

Impact on archaeology Saved policy CON11 states that development that would adversely affect a scheduled ancient monument, other site of archaeological importance or its setting, will not be permitted.

Archaeological remains should be protected in situ, unless there are exceptional overriding needs for development which would prevent this, in which case a detailed archaeological investigation should be carried out prior to development.

The assessment and recording of any archaeological deposits that might be present can be secured via condition in compliance with saved policy CON11.

Contaminated land issues Saved policy GEN9 states that proposals for development on land that is, or there is reason to believe may be, contaminated, will be permitted provided that the applicant has carried out and submitted a site survey to establish the nature and extent of the contamination which, together with the sensitivity of the proposed use to the contamination, other environmental implications and the effectiveness of the proposed remedial measures do not put the development and its users at risk.

The Council's Environmental Health team have looked at the contamination risk assessment submitted and requested that the standard contaminated land condition is necessary. Subject to condition the proposal would comply with saved policy GEN9.

Climate change The NPPF paragraph 93 states that planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy. The level 3 code for sustainable homes energy standard is now incorporated in the building regulations therefore there is no need to repeat this through a planning condition.

SPA/ SANG Saved local plan policies CON1 and CON2 relate to the Thames Basin Special Protection Area (SPA) and state that development which would adversely affect the nature conservation value of a site will only be permitted if it can be subject to conditions that will prevent damaging impacts on wildlife habitats or other natural features of importance on the site or if other material factors are sufficient to override the nature conservation interest. South East Plan policy NRM6 requires adequate measures to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects on the Thames Basin Special Protection Area (SPA). The SPA is a network of heathland sites which are designated for their ability to provide a habitat for the internationally important bird species of woodlark, nightjar and Dartford warbler. The area is designated as a result of the Birds Directive and the European Habitats Directive and protected in the UK under the provisions set out in the Habitats Regulations. These bird species are particularly subject to disturbance from walkers, dog walkers and cat predation because the nest on or near the ground.

58 Natural England has indicated that it considers that within 5km of the SPA additional residential development in combination will have a significant effect on the SPA. Thus without mitigation any proposal is contrary to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. In April 2008 the Thames Basin Heaths Joint Strategic Partnership agreed a Thames Basin Heaths Delivery Framework to enable the delivery of housing in the vicinity of the SPA without that development having a significant effect on the SPA as a whole. The delivery framework is based on avoidance measures and the policy indicates that these measures can take the form of areas of open space known as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). The policy also states that local authorities will collect developer contributions towards mitigation measures including the provision of SANGs land and joint contributions to the funding of Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) the effects of mitigation measures across the SPA.

A second application for a SANG has been submitted to the Council for consideration. This SANG would measuring approximately 11.4ha in area located to the east of Mill Lane, 1.2km away. The SANG would be established as areas of meadow, smaller areas of woodland, scattered trees and shrubs. This specific application (our reference 16/03398/FUL) would provide sufficient SANG to mitigate for the proposed 83 Houses. The SANG proposal and this application for housing will need to be linked by way of a planning obligation to ensure that the SANGs is provided prior to the commencement of the housing scheme. The concerns at present being essentially of a technical nature concerned with the design, layout and delivery of the SANG rather than its principle.

The applicant would also need to provide a SAMM contribution in line with the Council's policy; the final amount being dependent on the final housing mix and this can be secured via the legal agreement.

The proposed development would therefore not have a significant effect on the SPA and consequently comply with saved policies CON1 and CON2 and South East Plan policy NRM6.

Community Infrastructure Leisure: At a District level the site lies in an area where visitor data indicates that future occupants would be likely to visit Fleet Leisure Centre. As such a contribution in line with the Council's policy should be made towards District Leisure contributions; the final contribution amount will be dependent on the final housing mix.

In addition, further projects have been put forward by the Parish Council for funding. The final contribution amount will be dependent on the final housing mix and will be secured by way of a planning obligation.

Education: The proposed development of 83 dwellings is expected to generate a total of 25 additional primary age children (4 per year group) and 17 secondary age children (3 per year group). This is based on a figure of 0.3 primary age children per new dwelling and 0.21 secondary age which, was derived by conducting demographic surveys of developments that have been completed within Hampshire and calculating the average number of primary and secondary age children on those developments.

The development site is served by Robert Mays Secondary School. The Secondary School is operating at capacity and has recently secured permission to expand by 150 places to mitigate the impact of development in its catchment area.

Based on the actual cost of this expansion project and including site abnormals, a contribution to mitigate the additional 17 secondary pupils is being sought.

59 Conclusion: Provided that a legal agreement is completed to secure contributions there would be sufficient mitigation for the proposals impact on community infrastructure. Securing such contributions complies with the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations (2010).

CONCLUSION

In terms of the benefits, the scheme would deliver additional housing, both market and affordable in line with the NPPF's aim of significantly boosting the supply of such, this benefit must be given substantial weight. The site also brings forward the provision of SANG to help facilitate the development which are benefits which should also be given some weight. The proposal would not result in significant harm to the natural or built environment. There would be no unacceptable harm to neighbour amenity. The access arrangements are acceptable and there could be sufficient onsite parking. The Government has made clear its view that house building plays an important role in promoting economic growth. In economic terms, the schemes would provide construction jobs and some local investment during its build out. These jobs and investment would be transitory, and in this regard moderate weight should be afforded.

The scheme would result in the loss of some tress and hedging, although potential mitigation would offset this harm.

Placing all factors and all of the relevant material considerations in the balance, the benefits of the housing and, most importantly and substantially, the provision of SANG to help facilitate development, out weight any perceived harm. Provided that the legal agreement is completed there would be sufficient affordable housing provision, and mitigation for the proposals impact on the SPA and community infrastructure.

RECOMMENDATION The application be referred to Full Council with a recommendation that the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to grant permission subject to the prior completion of an appropriate legal agreement to include the following:

a) Maintenance and provision of all open space and play space b) Payment of appropriate infrastructure contributions towards Leisure (District and Parish), Education and SANG. c) Provision of SANG d) Requirement that the proposed SANG under application 16/03398/FUL be linked and its provision secured as part of the delivery of this housing development e) Provision of affordable housing f) Delivery of the Site Access works as shown in principle on drawing number ITB10229-GA-002_F. g) Implementation of a Residential Travel Plan, payment of the Travel Plan approval and monitoring fees, and provision of a surety mechanism to ensure implementation of the Travel Plan.

AND subject to conditions that have first been agreed by the Head of Regulatory Services in consultation with the Chairman of Planning Committee and the respective Planning Committee Ward Councillor.

60 CONDITIONS

1 No development shall commence before approval of the details of the appearance of the buildings, landscaping, layout and scale of the proposed development, and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called the "reserved matters") has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing.

Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 1 year from the date of this planning permission.

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 the sooner.

Reason

To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2 Details of the means of access, including the layout, construction and sightlines, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before development commences. The agreed details shall be fully implemented before the construction of any dwelling hereby approved is commenced.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of access to the highway.

3 Details of the width, alignment, gradient and type of construction proposed for the roads, footways and accesses, including all relevant horizontal cross sections and longitudinal sections showing the existing and proposed levels, together with details of street lighting and the method of disposing of surface water, and details of a programme for the making up of the roads and footways shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before development in any phase commences. The agreed details shall be fully implemented before any adjacent building or use hereby approved is occupied.

Reason: In order to ensure satisfactory access to the development and to comply with saved policy GEN1 of the Hart Local Plan.

4 No development or demolition work or delivery of materials shall take place at the site except between 07:30 hours to 18:00 hours weekdays or 08:00 to 13:00 hours Saturdays. No development or demolition work or deliveries of materials shall take place on Sundays or Public Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby residential occupiers and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

5 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement 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 provide for: i. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials

61 iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development iv. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate v. wheel washing facilities and the dispersal of waste water vi. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction vii. a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works viii details of the site office/compound

The details should provide sufficient parking within the site so as to avoid any off-site parking by contractors. The proposed access road from Hawley Road shall be constructed prior to the commencement of construction of dwellings and no construction traffic shall enter the site from Fernhill Lane.

Reason: to protect the amenities of the locality and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

6 Prior to first occupation a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before development commences. The agreed details shall be fully implemented before the construction of any dwelling hereby approved is commenced.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of access and highway safety.

7 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a 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.

Reasons: To prevent the deterioration of water quality of the receiving water bodies.

8 Development shall not commence until a drainage strategy detailing any on and/or off site drainage works, has been submitted to and approved by, the local planning authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be accepted into the public system until the drainage works referred to in the strategy have been completed. This shall include details of the connection to the off-site foul sewers and the increase in capacity if necessary.

Reason - The development may lead to sewage flooding; to ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community and to satisfy Saved Policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

9 Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details. The scheme shall also include: - Where applicable, infiltration test results in accordance with BRE 365

62 - Calculation demonstrating no increase in surface water runoff rates and volumes for all return periods up to the 1 in 100 plus 30% for climate change compared to the existing site. - Calculations demonstrating that there will be no flooding on site up to the 1 in 30 storm event and any flooding up to the 1 in 100 plus 30% allowance for climate change storm event will be safely contained on site. Locations where flooding from the drainage network occurs must be identified by pipe number. - Provide detailed drawings showing the proposed drainage system layout labelled with pipe numbers. - The drainage scheme shall include the details of any water quality control features.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and prevent the deterioration of water quality.

10 The maximum number of units permitted on this site is 83.

Reason: to ensure that the development is properly planned and to satisfy Saved Local Plan Policy GEN1.

11 Construction of the development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until drawings including cross-sections through the site showing the finished floor level and finished ridge heights of the buildings in relation to the existing ground level of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The submitted plans shall also show the Ordnance datum levels of the site as existing and as proposed. The dwellings shall not be constructed other than in accordance with the approved details of floor levels.

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out at suitable levels in order to prevent the dwelling being overbearing in the landscape.

12 No development shall take place until details and samples of all external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is/are satisfactory and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

13 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Hard details shall include, as appropriate, proposed finished levels and/or contours, means of enclosure of unbuilt open areas, car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas, hard surfacing materials and artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, refuse or other storage units, signage, lighting, external services, manholes, etc.).

Soft landscape details shall include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant establishment), schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes and proposed densities where appropriate.

Details shall further include a proposed timetable for planting and laying out of hard surfaces and roads.

63 Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscaping and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

14 Hard and soft landscaping works shall be fully carried out in accordance with the approved details, including the approved timetable, and to a reasonable standard in accordance with the relevant provisions of appropriate British Standards or other recognised codes of good practice. The Council shall be notified in writing of the completion of the scheme or any agreed phase of such scheme.

Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years after approved completion, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of similar species, size and number as originally approved, unless the Council gives its written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscaping and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

15 Prior to commencement of development a meeting shall be held between the appointed building contractor, the appointed arboricultural specialist and the Local Authority Tree Officer to discuss and agree the position of tree protection and the tree protection erected as outlined in the agreed Arboricultural Reports. Once a month the local planning authority shall be informed of the progress of the development by the appointed arboricultural specialist.

Reason: to ensure the ongoing protection of the trees on site and to satisfy saved policies GEN1 and CON8 of the Hart District Local Plan

16 No work shall take place until a landscape management plan, including a maintenance schedule and a written undertaking including proposals for the long term management of landscape areas, other than for small, privately occupied, domestic garden areas, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The subsequent maintenance shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscaping and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

17 Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, no development shall commence until contaminated land report to assess potential contaminants has been prepared, submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the 4 stage strategy below. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

1. Site Characterisation

The investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must

64 be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include: (i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; (ii) an assessment of the potential risks to: o human health, o property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, o adjoining land, o groundwaters and surface waters, o ecological systems, o archeological sites and ancient monuments; (iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.

2. Submission of Remediation Scheme

A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation. 3. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme

The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

4. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination

In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of clause 1, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Clause 2, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with Clause 3.

Reason: To ensure that the land is properly decontaminated where appropriate and to satisfy Saved Policies GEN1 and GEN9 of the Hart District Local Plan

65 18 Before the development hereby permitted is begun a scheme for grey water recycling and/or rainwater harvesting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the development is first occupied and shall remain operational for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To satisfy the requirements of the Planning and Climate Change in the NPPF.

19 Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, details for the provision to be made for the parking of bicycles on the site, including the location, quantum and specification of cycle parking provision, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented in accordance agreed details by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter retained for their intended purpose.

Reason: To encourage sustainable travel and to comply with the NPPF

20 A detailed ecological management plan outlining all ecological enhancements should be prepared and agreed with the Local Authority prior to any construction beginning on the site.

Reason: to ensure appropriate ecological enhancement and to satisfy Saved Policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan

21 That no development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with previously agreed written specification that has been submitted to an approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To mitigate the effect of the works associated with the development upon any heritage assets and to ensure that information regarding these heritage assets is preserved by record for future generations.

22 The trees, hedges, hedgerows and shrubs shall be retained and protected in accordance with the approved details for the duration of works on the site and for at least five years following occupation of the approved development, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Any such vegetation immediately adjoining the site shall be protected on the site in a similar manner for the duration of works on the site. Any such vegetation removed without the Local Planning Authority's consent, or which die or become, in the Authority's opinion, seriously damaged or otherwise defective during such period shall be replaced and/or shall receive remedial action as required by the Authority. Such works shall be implemented as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, replacement planting shall be implemented by not later than the end of the following planting season, with planting of such size and species and in such number and positions as may be agreed with the Authority in writing.

Reason: to ensure the ongoing protection of the trees on site and to satisfy saved policies GEN1 and CON8 of the Hart District Local Plan

23 Before work commences a detailed site specific Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

66 To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing trees and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

24 Applications for the approval of reserved matters shall be in accordance with the principles and parameters described and illustrated in the Design & Access Statement submitted November 2016, the proposed Masterplan 1205.03C submitted November 2016 , and the access plans agreed through conditions 2 and 3, or as subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure an appropriate co-ordinated high quality form of development in accordance with Saved Local Plan Policy GEN1

INFORMATIVES

1 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance:

The applicant was advised of the necessary information needed to process the application and, once received, the application was acceptable and no further engagement with the applicant was required.

2 A Groundwater Risk Management Permit from Thames Water will be required for discharging groundwater into a public sewer. Any discharge made without a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991. You should demonstrate what measures you will undertake to minimise groundwater discharges into the public sewer. Permit enquiries should be directed to Thames Water's Risk Management Team by telephoning 0203 577 9483 or by emailing [email protected] Application forms should be completed on line via www.thameswater.co.uk/wastewaterquality.

3 There must be no surface alterations to any right of way, nor any works carried out which affect its surface, without first seeking the permission of Hampshire County Council, as Highway Authority. For the purposes of this proposal that permission would be required from the Countryside Access Officer (Planning). To carry out any such works without this permission would constitute an offence unders131 Highways Act 1980, and the applicant is encouraged to contact Hampshire County Council as soon as possible to discuss any works of this nature.

4 Nothing connected with the development or its future use should have any adverse effect on any right of way, which must remain available for public use at all times.

5 No builders or contractors vehicles, machinery, equipment, materials, scaffolding or anything associated with the works should be left on or near any footpath so as to obstruct, hinder or provide a hazard to walkers.

6 If there is likely to be an effect on any footpath in terms of dust, noise or other obstruction during the period of the works, it is suggested that a Health and Safety Risk Assessment be carried out, and if there is deemed to be a risk to users of any footpath, the applicant should contact Hampshire County Council to discuss the Temporary Closure of the footpath(s) effected for the duration of the works.

COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 103 APPLICATION NO. 17/00460/HOU LOCATION 22 Oasthouse Drive Fleet Hampshire GU51 2UL PROPOSAL Single storey rear extension and loft conversion over garage APPLICANT Mr Wright CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 31 March 2017 APPLICATION EXPIRY 25 April 2017 WARD Fleet East Ward RECOMMENDATION Grant

68 Site and Parking Plan

Proposed Elevations

Proposed Floor Plans

BACKGROUND

This application is being brought to committee because the Application is a Councillor for Hart District Council and Councillor for Fleet Town Council.

THE SITE The application side consists of a two storey link detached property with integral garage, located towards the end of Oasthouse Drive on the northern side of the road. The plot is rectangular in shape, measuring approximately 31m from front to rear boundaries and 11m from either side. The plot is generally level throughout.

The site is not located within Conservation Area, nor subject to an Article 4 direction. There are no protected trees within 15m of the site.

PROPOSAL Single storey rear extension and loft conversion over garage

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY None.

CONSULTEES RESPONSES

Highways No objection.

Fleet Town Council NO OBJECTION But concern over possible breach in 45 degree rule

Ecology Consult (Internal) Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

The property is of modern design and is unlikely to support features utilised by bats. Therefore I have no objection to this application on the grounds of biodiversity.

NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS

One objection received from adjacent neighbour at 21 Oasthouse Drive regarding impact to their property.

Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006

GEN4 - General Design Policy

GEN1 - General policy for development

URB1 - Definition of Areas

T14 - Transport and Development

71 URB16 - Extensions

CONSIDERATIONS

Principle The site is located within the defined urban settlement area of Fleet where extensions are acceptable in principle subject to there being no overriding development management issues such as highway safety, residential amenity, or any other material planning issues. The proposal is assessed against the Hart District Local Plan Saved Policies GEN1, GEN4, URB1, URB16 and T14. These Saved Policies are compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Design The single storey rear extension will measure approximately 4m in length and 5.3m in width, coming flush with either side of the existing kitchen/dining area. The proposed extension will be constructed with a combination of a single pitch roof form which will then continue with a flat roof, measuring approximately 2.8m to eaves height and 3.4m to the flat roof. A roof lantern will also be inserted within the flat roof measuring a further 0.5m above the overall height. Two windows will be inserted to the western side elevation, accommodating the proposed extended kitchen/dining room.

The proposed loft conversion above the garage will involve creating a pitched roof dormer to the front elevation, measuring approximately 1.7m to eaves height and 2.5m to the ridge height. The garage eaves height to the rear will also be raised, matching that on the existing property of approximately 4.8m, to accommodate the required head height in the proposed bedroom. The ridge height above the garage will remain as existing. A window will also be inserted at first floor level.

All proposed materials will match the existing.

Overall, it is considered the proposal is a modest and proportionate addition to existing dwelling and considered acceptable in terms of design.

Impact on Street Scene The proposed dormer is the only element of the proposal that will be directly visible from the street scene. Pitched roof dormers have been established within the street scene already and are not an uncommon feature, therefore it is considered there would be no adverse impact on the street scene and overall character of the area and considered acceptable.

Neighbouring Amenity The proposed rear extension is set approximately 1.5m away from the eastern side boundary with 23 Oasthouse Drive where that property is also set approximately a similar distance away from the boundary. It is therefore considered there would be no adverse impact in terms of neighbouring amenity to this property.

The neighbour of 21 Oasthouse Drive, to the western side of the application site, has objected regarding impact in terms of loss of light and the clearly visible wall above the fence line. The proposed extension is set approximately 2.6m away from the boundary with 21 Oasthouse Drive. 21 Oasthouse is handed to 22 Oasthouse, therefore there may be a minimal degree of impact in terms of loss of light to the ground floor utility room behind the integral garage, however this is not considered to be a habitable room. With regards to the visual outlook, the overall height of the roof is modest along with the length of the

72 extension, it is understood the extension will be visible from the neighbours garden however it is not too dissimilar to the allowances within Permitted Development, which would also be visible. Overall, it is not considered to be detrimental to the amenities of the occupier of 21 Oasthouse Drive and therefore considered acceptable overall.

Impact on Highway The proposal intends to create an additional bedroom above the garage, therefore going from a 3 to a 4 bedroomed property. The application site falls within Zone 2 of Hart Parking Provisions Interim Guidance which advises that 3.5 spaces are required. The Highways Engineer has considered the parking plan and noted that the garage cannot be counted as there is inadequate space, due to the narrow dimensions. The Highways Engineer also noted that the applicants should apply for the dropped kerb to extended for the space number 4 shown on the submitted plan. Although there is a shortfall of 0.5 spaces, this is considered to be for visitors, The Highways Engineer raised no objections providing that the approved parking facilities are retained as such at all times. It is therefore considered to the proposal would not be detrimental to the proposed situation therefore it is acceptable in terms of impact on the highway.

Bats A walkover survey by the applicant was conducted on site which confirmed there was no evidence of bats. The Ecologist has been consulted and raised no objections and is therefore considered acceptable in terms of impact on bats.

Other Matters The Parish Council raised concerns of the breech of the 45 degree rule which has been carried out to either side and the proposal does not result in any impact to habitable rooms of either neighbouring property.

CONCLUSION

The proposal has been assessed against Saved Policies GEN1, GEN4, URB1, URB16 and T14 of the Hart District Local Plan. The proposal is acceptable in terms of design, appearance and impact and is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION - Grant

CONDITIONS

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following plan nos. and documents:

Block Plan

73 Parking Plan Floor Plans Proposed Elevations - rev A Cross Section A-A and Plan Cross Section B-B and Plan

Reason To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and particulars.

3 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match in type, colour, texture and bond, those on the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason To ensure a satisfactory visual relationship of the new development with the existing building and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

4 The approved parking facilities for vehicles shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking of motorised vehicles and access shall be maintained at all times to allow them to be used as such.

Reason To ensure that the development is provided with adequate parking to prevent the likelihood of on-street car parking and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan.

INFORMATIVES

1 You may require Building Regulations Consent and we advise that you should contact Building Control on 01252 398715.

2 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance:The applicant was advised of the necessary information needed to process the application and, once received, the application was acceptable and no further engagement with the applicant was required.

3 The applicant is advised to make sure that the works hereby approved are carried out with due care and consideration to the amenities of adjacent properties and users of any nearby public highway or other rights of way. It is good practice to ensure that works audible at the boundary of the site are limited to be carried out between 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday, 8am and 12 noon on Saturdays with no working on Sunday and Bank Holidays. The storage of materials and parking of operatives vehicles should be normally arranged on site.

COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 104 APPLICATION NO. 17/00545/PRIOR LOCATION 7 Home Park Road Yateley Hampshire GU46 6HN PROPOSAL Ground Floor Rear extension. APPLICANT Mrs Louise Billings CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 31.03.2017 APPLICATION EXPIRY 18 April 2017 WARD East Yateley RECOMMENDATION Prior Approval Not Required

75 Site Plan

Proposed Floor Plans

76 Proposed Elevations

BACKGROUND

This application is being brought to Committee because the Applicant is a direct relative of a District Councillor.

THE SITE The property is a semi-detached chalet style house located within the cul de sac of Home Park Drive in the urban settlement of Yateley. The building dates from the mid 1960's and the design is typical of that period with flat roofed dormers at front and rear. A single detached garage is located to the west of the site. The property is not located within a Conservation Area, nor subject to Article 4 Directions.

PROPOSAL This application is for prior notification under paragraph A4 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a single storey rear extension.

The property was built as per planning reference 67/03922/H6 where there are conditions removing permitted development rights for the erection of fences along the front boundaries and for the erection of a building, structure, walls, fences, hedges, trees and shrubs to the area coloured green on the approved plans which covers the front garden areas and as such the permitted development rights in regards to Class A to the rear of the property have not been removed.

The proposed extension would measure 4.3m deep, 4.9m wide, 2.5m to eaves height and 2.7m to ridge height.

77 CONSULTEES RESPONSES N/A.

NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS

None received.

Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006

N/A.

CONSIDERATIONS

MAIN ISSUES Compliance with the GPDO Is the proposed extension permitted development by virtue of Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) and including paragraph A1(g) of Class A that states:

"until 30th May 2019, for a dwellinghouse not on article 2(3) land nor on a site of special scientific interest, the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have a single storey and —

(i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 8 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse, or 6 metres in the case of any other dwellinghouse, or (ii) exceed 4 metres in height"?

CONSIDERATIONS

Does the proposed extension encroach onto the neighbouring property? No.

Does the proposed total area of ground covered by buildings within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse (other than the original dwellinghouse) exceed 50% of the total area of the curtilage (excluding the ground area of the original dwellinghouse)? No.

Would the proposed extension extend beyond a wall which fronts a highway and forms either the principal elevation or a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse? Yes, the extension would project from the rear of the property and adjoin the garage located to the side of the property, however it would not exceed half the width of the original property.

Would the proposed extension exceed the highest part of the roof of the existing dwellinghouse? No.

78 Would the proposed extension extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 8 metres? No, the proposed depth of the extension is 4.3m.

Would the extension exceed 4 metres in height? No, the proposed extension would measure 2.7m at the highest point.

Would the extension be located within 2 metres of the boundary, if so would the proposed height of the eaves exceed 3 metres? The extension would be within 2 metres of the boundary, however the eaves height would be under 3m.

CONCLUSION

No letters of representation have been received from the adjoining neighbours and as such neighbour amenity does not need to be assessed and the development complies with Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) subject to the following condition:

(a) The materials used in any exterior work (other than materials used in the construction of a conservatory) must be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse.

RECOMMENDATION - Prior Approval Not Required

1 On the basis of the evidence provided and following research into the planning history of the property, the proposal to erect a single storey rear extension, received as per the application form and the proposed plans (reference D1649-11 rev A) constitutes permitted development by virtue of Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) and is therefore lawful for the purposes of Section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act.