Major Application Cttee

Major Application

Cttee: 02/10/13 Item No. 1

Application no: 13/00897/OUT For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Harwood Paddock Woolton Hill Newbury Hampshire Proposal Outline planning permission for up to 67 residential dwellings to include access

Registered: 24 June 2013 Expiry Date: 10 October 2013 Type of Outline Planning Case Officer: Katherine Miles Application: Application 01256 845249 Applicant: Catesby Kler Land Agent: Ms Rebecca Fenn-Tripp LLP Ward: East Woodhay Ward Member(s): Cllr Clive Sanders

Parish: EAST WOODHAY OS Grid Reference: 443425 162227 CP

 Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport  Education  Affordable housing  Off-site enhancement of Playing Fields  Provision of or contribution towards a local area of equipped play (LEAP)  Off-site enhancement of community facilities  On site provision of a kickabouts and areas of accessible natural green space  On site provision of Percent for Art  Provision of allotments within the Parish of East Woodhay  A Landscape Management Plan

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

On completion of the legal agreement the Planning and Development Manager be delegated to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed at the end of this report

1 of 213

Reasons for Approval

1. The proposed development would deliver housing development in accordance with the Borough's Land Supply requirements. The proposal therefore accords with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012. 2. Whilst the proposed development would constitute major development within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, given the contained nature of the site together with retention of existing boundary vegetation and associated new landscaping, the proposal would preserve the landscape character and scenic quality of the area and as such would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 3. The proposed development would provide safe access in accordance with highway requirements, and as such would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 and with Saved Policies E1(iii) and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 4. The proposal would conserve the biodiversity value and nature conservation interests of the site and would respect the environment for trees of high amenity value and as such the proposal would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policies E1, E6 and E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 5. The proposed development would respect the character of its surroundings as demonstrated through the Design and Access Statement and illustrative masterplan as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011. 6. The proposed development would respect the environment of trees of high amenity value and as such would comply with the Council's Landscape and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document and Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 7. The proposed development would provide affordable housing to meet an identified need within a rural area. As such the proposal would comply with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); Saved Policy C2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the Council's Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document. 8. Through the provision of a Section 106 legal agreement the development will provide adequate infrastructure to mitigate the impact of the development. The development therefore complies with Saved Policies C1, C7 and C9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011, the Community Infrastructure Levy regulation 2010 and Hampshire County Council 's adopted Transport Contributions Policy (September 2007).

General Comments

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

Additional information has been received in support of this planning application and consequently further consultation was undertaken for 14 days, commencing 2 September 2013.

2 of 213

Planning Policy

The site is located within the countryside and lies outside, but immediately adjacent to the Settlement Policy Boundary of Woolton Hill.

The site lies within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and there are a number of trees along the northern boundary covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

The proposed development is located in Flood Zone 1 (low probability) and the application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) given that the development site is greater than 1ha in size.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

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

Achieving Sustainable Development Core Planning Principles Section 4: Promoting Sustainable Transport Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7: Requiring Good Design Section 8: Promoting Healthy Communities Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (Saved Policies)

For the purposes of decision-taking, Paragraph 211 of the NPPF is clear that the policies within the Local Plan should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of the Framework, whilst Paragraph 212 is clear that the policies within the NPPF are material considerations which Local Planning Authorities should take into account from the day of publication (27 March 2012).

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

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

Location of Development Policies: D5 (Residential and other Development within Settlements) and D6 (New Residential Accommodation in the Countryside)

3 of 213

Environment Policies: E1 (Development Control); E6 (Landscape Character) and E7 (Nature/Biodiversity Conservation)

Social/Community Policies: C1 (S106 Contributions); C2 (Affordable Housing); C3 (Housing Mix); and C9 (New Leisure Facilities or Open Spaces)

Accessibility and Infrastructure Policies: A1 (Car Parking); A2 (Encouraging Walking, Cycling and the Use of Public Transport); A3 (Infrastructure Improvements); and A7 (Water and Sewerage Infrastructure)

Emerging Local Plan

The Council is responsible for the development of planning policies which guide and shape future development in the Borough and in this regard a draft Local Plan, endorsed by Full Council in July 2013, is currently out for Public Consultation. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF states:

“From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

 the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);  the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and  the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”

It should be noted that the application site is listed as a Category 2 site in Version 7 of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2013, (reference WHILL002). The SHLAA states that “the site it is not considered to be suitable for strategic allocation, however it may have potential to come forward through alternative mechanisms such as neighbourhood planning if the development was of an appropriate scale and if any physical constraints could be overcome”. As such, the site has not been put forward by the Council in the emerging Local Plan as a housing allocation site, however this does not preclude the site from development through other mechanisms.

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

Appendix 5 Design and Sustainability SPD (Construction Statements) Appendix 6 Design and Sustainability SPD (Waste and Recycling) Appendix 7 Design and Sustainability SPD (Places to Live) Appendix 14 Design and Sustainability SPD (Countryside Design Summary) Residential Amenity Design Guidance SPD 2012 Residential Parking Standards SPD Affordable Housing SPG Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards SPD The Historic Environment: Listed Buildings SPG Woolton Hill Village Design Statement (VDS) SPG

4 of 213

Basingstoke Landscape Character Assessment SPG Trees and Development SPG

Other material documents

S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Planning Guidance (Updated 2013) Green Space Standards 2013 EU Habitats Directive and the UK Habitat Regulations The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 Circular 11/95: 'Use of conditions in planning permission'. Code for Sustainable Homes Manual for Streets Hampshire County Council ‘Companion Guide to Manual for Streets’ Hampshire Highways Transport Contributions Policy 2007 Basingstoke Environment Strategy for Transport (BEST) SPG

Description of Site

The application site is located within Woolton Hill, a village to the north west corner of the Borough. Woolton Hill is within the Parish of East Woodhay and is located 6 miles to the south west of Newbury. The village contains a number of local facilities including a general store and post office, a public house, medical centre, church/community hall, and primary schools.

The site is a 3.2ha agricultural field of rough grassland, bounded by a mix of fencing, hedgerow and mature trees. Both the north western and south eastern boundaries are sloping and fall down to the middle of the site, which forms a natural channel. The north western boundary with Tile Barn Row is formed from an avenue of trees, which are under a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). There are also further TPO’s along the south eastern, northern and southern boundaries.

On the opposite side of the road is Harwood Lodge, a Hampshire Registered Historic Park and Garden and Harwood Farm, which is also a stud farm, similar to Gainsborough Stud the other side of Harwood Lodge along Tile Barn Row.

The immediate area is characterised by predominantly large, two storey residential properties set within modest plots. The density of development is typically low, with gaps evident between buildings. There are some typical 1960’s and 1970’s housing estates within the village and also a number of modern infill dwellings. To the north of the site is Tile Barn Row, which is a rural lane without street lighting or pavements and is subject to a 30mph speed limit. The site is surrounded on its remaining three sides by existing residential development. Those dwellings along Broadlayings/Cutters Hill Road, Longmead and Greenways all have the rear gardens of the properties facing onto the site. In the north western corner of the field is a recent development of 16 dwellings by Linden Homes, known as Harwood Court (allowed on appeal under BDB/74064). A number of these dwellings area also rear facing, with one dwelling positioned side-on to the application site. Access to this development is taken off Tile Barn Row.

5 of 213

Proposal

This is an outline application for the erection of up to 67 dwellings. Alongside the principle of development, means of access is the only matter for consideration. All other matters, including the layout and appearance of the development are reserved.

Access to the site is proposed to be taken from Tile Barn Row, and the point of access would be located within the north eastern corner of the site. Technical drawings of the proposed access accompany this application.

Assuming a maximum of 67 dwellings, this application proposes:

 a density of 27 dwellings per hectare;  a housing mix comprising 8 no. 2 bed units; 5 no. 3 bed units; 36 no. 4 bed units and 4 no. 5 bed units;  40% affordable housing, comprising 14 units on site (7 no. 2 bed units and 7 no. 3 bed units) with the balance (equating to 13 units) taken as an off-site contribution;  0.5 ha of on-site public open space, including a kickabout, toddler play space and accessible natural greenspace;  A package of S106 contributions to enhance existing community facilities and undertake improvements to the existing highway infrastructure in the vicinity of the site; and  On site Sustainable Urban Drainage attenuation ponds.

Whilst the application proposals are in outline, the applicant has submitted an indicative masterplan; a land use and building heights parameters plan; and indicative cross-sections and streetscenes which illustrate how a development of up to 67 units could be accommodated on site.

Consultations

East Woodhay Parish Council: Objection:

“Summary: East Woodhay Parish Council (EWPC) has considered the above Outline Planning Application and concludes that it must object to this development proposal on the grounds that it is an opportunistic exploitation of the Borough’s short term lack of a 5 year land supply, providing housing that is not required, in a location that is unsustainable, and before the community has completed its own Neighbourhood Plan to identify any future housing need. Specifically the proposal demonstrates:-

1. Conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework - 2012 paras. 9, 14, 34, 35, 49, 55, 72, 115 & 176  fails to constitute the sustainable development required  places additional population burden on an already heavily developed village  stretches basic services and amenities beyond already exceeded capacity  no demonstrable need for additional local housing under the draft Local Plan.

 already stretched health, education and infrastructure services inadequately addressed  cannot be adequately served by public transport in this rural environment  will lead to dangerous traffic pressure on C road choke points during school drop off / commuter periods and further pressure on the primary access junction of C5 / A343.

3. Conflict with B&DBC Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (January 2013)  East Woodhay Parish, and specifically Woolton Hill, are not included as areas scheduled for necessary development.  Not necessary to achieve the borough’s housing requirement of 748 dwellings per annum, included in the Draft Local Plan as agreed by Council on the 25th July 2013

4. Premature submission in context of B&DBC Local Plan revision 2013  housing needs portfolio excluding East Woodhay already completed at the time of application  B&DBC Council has proposed that consultation will commence in mid / late August 2013.  draft Local Plan allows for “… development and redevelopment within the defined Settlement Policy Boundaries” but the proposed development site is outside the defined Settlement Boundary.  terms of a Local Plan so close to final approval are material to consideration of the application.

5. Adverse impact on Local Community services, amenities and infrastructure  proposed development is disproportionate to size and semi-rural location of Woolton Hill  the proposal represents estimated 4.3% one time increase to the Parish population and an estimated increase of over 6% to the population of Woolton Hill village itself,  the land proposed for community use is insufficient to make any significant contribution to providing community facilities and is provided at the expense of achieving a satisfactory level of affordable housing.  proposal fails to demonstrate that it can improve essential services, or sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of the community  adverse impact is identified on local schools, health services, sewerage and highways  Conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework - 2012

1.1 NPPF Paragraph 9: states “Pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life, including (but not limited to):

 making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages;  moving from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains for nature;  replacing poor design with better design;  improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure; and  widening the choice of high quality homes.”

EWPC sees no evidence in the application that any positive improvement is to be made to the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, or to people’s quality of life. Furthermore there is a strong potential both for negative impact on local bio-diversity and for worsening existing conditions for local people of Woolton Hill in aspects of work or 7 of 213 leisure pursuits, as significant additional burden will be placed on the already inadequate community infrastructure of the village.

EWPC therefore considers that the proposal fails to constitute sustainable development in an already heavily developed village

1.2 NPPF Paragraph 14: states that approval be considered favourably “unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. EWPC believes that a number of Local Plan saved policies should be considered material (see Section 2 of this document). Further, the near completed status of new Local Plan and of the review of the Borough’s housing land requirements, which totally exclude Woolton Hill as an area of development need, should, in the view of EWPC, be considered as material consideration in this context.

EWPC therefore considers that Full B&DBC Council approval of a draft Local Plan for consultation on 25 July 2013 and the imminent approval of a local plan for B&DBC, which excludes Woolton Hill as a site for necessary housing development, constitutes a material consideration which should support a refusal to grant approval of the application at this time.

1.3 NPPF Paragraph 34: States “Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised.”

There being no available employment in the immediate area, the proposed development will inevitably generate significant additional vehicle movements at peak times on already congested “C” roads” past traffic restricted school areas and utilising inadequate junctions on to major roads. There is no current adequate, or planned sustainable transport system commensurate with the housing style envisaged.

EWPC considers that this development is not to be located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised and should therefore be rejected.

1.4 NPPF Paragraph 35: states, inter alia, “Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people.

 Therefore, developments should be located and designed where practical to accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies;  create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones”

Furthermore, NPPF Paragraph 36: states “A key tool to facilitate this will be a Travel Plan. All developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan”

The submitted Transport Assessment Report ( David Tucker Associates) focusses largely on impacts to the immediate neighbourhood of Tile Barn Row, with some reference to historical accident rates at the Andover Road junction with the C5 access to Woolton Hill, but significantly makes no significant assessment of the inevitable impact imposed by the occupants of an additional 49 dwellings on the already heavily over congested road (C5) outside St Thomas Infant School and Woolton Hill Junior School especially during the critical morning period of school drop off and commuter access to Newbury, Basingstoke 8 of 213 and Andover. Vehicles, including large delivery vehicles, are often seen to be mounting the pedestrian pavement to enable traffic passage at a time of peak pavement use by young children and parents. Similarly the increased traffic at the already peak congested and uncontrolled C5/A343 junction will pose significant additional threat to parents with children attempting to cross from the Penwood Hills direction.

EWPC considers that the Travel Plan inadequately addresses the traffic danger choke points in relation to the impact of the additional vehicle movements at peak times and offers no realistic option of amelioration. It should therefore be rejected.

Furthermore EWPC notes that by providing only a single traffic access/exit point for the entire complex it fails to meet the guidelines for community development as expressed in Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) – 2008 on Design and Sustainability ( special reference: Appendix 7 Places to Live)

1.5 NPPF Paragraph 55: states “To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities”

Contrary to the Sustainability Statement submitted by Turley & Associates in which it is stated that “The proposals will deliver up to 49 new homes for Woolton Hill which are needed to meet a growing demand.” However neither is there a demonstrable local housing need in the village or parish of the type or dimension proposed, nor can it be considered that this proposal will enhance or maintain the vitality of the rural community’s development. Furthermore, the majority of respondents to a specific parish questionnaire reject the need for such a development in their community (89% of respondents). The report submitted by Turley & Associates claims “The development will positively contribute to the growth of the local rural economy bringing new homes and jobs, services and revenues.”, that “The application is in an accessible and sustainable location with access to public transport, essential services and pedestrian routes.” Further that it “Contributes to development of a strong local economy through the construction of up to 67 new homes with associated economic uplifts.” and “The development will provide much needed new and affordable homes that will help support the local economy through jobs, investment and support to new services”

There is no supportive evidence to demonstrate the local need for or benefit from such a development; indeed evidence suggests that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the local community.

EWPC considers that the application fails to meet the criteria of NPPF Para 55 and should consequently be rejected.

1.6 NPPF Paragraph 72: states “Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should:-  give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools and  work with schools promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted.”

9 of 213

There is insufficient evidence in the application that either of these two requirements has been adequately met for a community in which parents already express their concern that children cannot gain access to local schools.

EWPC considers that the application fails to meet the criteria of NPPF Para 72 and should consequently be rejected

1.7 NPPF Paragraph 115: states “Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty”.

Whilst emphasis is placed on a local Ecological Appraisal prepared by The Environmental Dimension Partnership (EDP), the planning application gives insufficient weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which has the highest status of protection in relation to these matters. This report also consistently incorrectly refers to the “Kent Valley Alderwoods Special Area of Conservation” which does not exist. It is assumed that the attempted referral is to the Kennet Valley SSSI.

EWPC considers that the application does not give the required weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty so as to meet the criteria of NPPF Para 115

1.8 NPPF Paragraph 176: states “Where safeguards are necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms, development should not be approved if the measures required cannot be secured through appropriate conditions or agreements.” With reference especially also to 1.4 above, it is acknowledged that Section 106 contributions are to be made if planning permission is granted. However there is no definite plan as to how this money can be appropriately spent to adequately alleviate the adverse impacts of the proposed development e.g. in relation to school places, highway safety etc.)

EWPC considers that the application does not describe sufficient corrective measures to satisfy the requirements of Para 176 and should be rejected.

2. Conflict with Local Plan Saved Policies A2, C1, D5, E1 & E6

2.1 Saved Policy A2: states “The Borough Council will only grant planning permission for developments with vehicular and pedestrian generation implications where:

1. cycling and walking infrastructure are integrated with the development and linked with surrounding networks; and 2. development takes account of the needs of public transport.

Elsewhere within the Plan area opportunities will be examined to improve provision for pedestrians, cyclists and to encourage the use of public transport including community transport in areas not served by conventional public transport. Additionally, the funding of local transport improvements will be sought in conjunction with new development where appropriate.

The proposed development fails to take account of the lack of adequate public transport provision in the village (Stagecoach routes 7/21/22) coupled with the very limited local availability for supply of provisions and no public transport whatsoever on a Sunday. The consequent increase in local car journeys, which would occur as a direct result of the

10 of 213 proposals, is not adequately addressed in the submission.

EWPC considers that the number and style of dwellings in the application will not be adequately addressed by public transport and will inevitably lead to significant increase in traffic movement on C roads, dangerous traffic pressure during school drop off / commuter periods and pressure on the primary access junction of C5 / A343.

2.2 Saved Policy C1: states “Development will be permitted only where there are, or will be, adequate infrastructure and community facilities. Where provision is inadequate, developers will be required to provide the infrastructure and community facilities necessary to allow the development to proceed. The Council will negotiate to secure planning obligations to ensure that such infrastructure and facilities are provided in time to meet the needs arising from the Development.”

Despite the necessary commitment to provision of finance under Section 106 Contributions, the proposed development fails to demonstrate how sufficient improvements to existing infrastructure and community facilities can be implemented to effectively mitigate against the this substantial development’s impact on the local area.

EWPC considers that the scope and style of dwellings proposed will inevitably inflict a greater impact on this rural community and its already stretched health, education and infrastructure services than that described by the applicant in the application. EWPC does not believe that the allocation of S106 monies will offset this deleterious effect.

2.2 Saved Policy D5: states “Residential and other development and redevelopment proposals which contribute to social, economic and environmental well-being will be permitted within the Settlement Policy Boundaries of the following settlements: Ashford Hill , Basingstoke Town and Chineham, Bramley , Burghclere, Cliddesden, Dummer, Kingsclere, North Waltham, Oakley, Old Basing, Overton , Preston Candover , Sherfield on Loddon, St. Mary Bourne, Sherborne St John, Tadley/ Baughurst/ Pamber Heath, Upton Grey, Whitchurch , Woolton Hill”

However the application site falls outside the Settlement Policy Boundary for Woolton Hill as delineated in the above Saved Policy. Areas outside of Settlement Policy Boundaries are described as countryside for the purposes of this Plan within the Saved Policy D5. Residential development under Policy D5 is described as taking the form of small–scale development, infill, redevelopment and regeneration opportunities, conversions or subdivisions, and windfall development. Reference is made, in 1.50 of Saved Policy D5, to small site development being of less than 10 dwellings.

Paragraph 1.52 of the Saved Policy D5 acknowledges that exceptional circumstances can sometimes apply. However, it states that, in assessing such applications, particular regard will be given to whether the site lies in a sustainable location (as defined in the Plan’s glossary) and whether the proposal will protect and maintain the rural and landscape character of the locality. The ‘Sustainable Location’ is described as “A location which, for new housing, is easily accessible to employment, education, retail, community and other facilities by a choice of attractive means of transport other than the private car…”

EWPC does not consider that the proposal satisfies the above criteria of the Saved Policy.

11 of 213

2.3 Saved Policy E1: states “Proposals for new development will be permitted provided that they are of a high standard of design, make efficient use of land, respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and do not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety.”

Attention is drawn to the EWPC comments at 1.3, 1.4 and 2.1 above. The size and nature of the proposed development would inevitably generate traffic of an inappropriate amount for restricted roads especially the C5 throughway of the village, on which two schools and access to a pre-school are situated. The submitted Transport Assessment Report conspicuously makes no reference to this aspect of the traffic status of the village.

EWPC does not consider that the proposal satisfies the above criteria of the Saved Policy.

2.4 Saved Policy E6: states “Planning permission will only be granted where it is demonstrated that the proposals will be sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of the area concerned. Development proposals should contribute to the regeneration, restoration, repair or conservation of any landscape likely to be affected.” It further states that “In particular they should respect, and improve …. “visual amenity and scenic quality; …the setting of a settlement, including important views to, across and out of settlements; and the local character of buildings and settlements, including important open areas….”

The introduction of the Linden Homes housing development is already considered by the majority of local residents as a significant blight on the local landscape. The new proposed development neither respects nor improves visual amenity and scenic quality, the setting of Woolton Hill (including important views to, across and out of the settlement). Nor is there evidence that this provides a positive contribution to the setting and character of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

EWPC does not consider that the proposal satisfies the above criteria of the Saved Policy.

3. Conflict with B&DBC Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (January 2013)

3.1 Appendix 4 to Version 7 of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (January 2013) identifies the application site as WHILL002 and makes the following comments on its development potential for housing:

‘The site lies outside but adjacent to the Settlement Policy Boundary as defined under saved Policy D5 of the ALP. The site is not considered to be suitable for strategic allocation, however, it may have potential to come forward through alternative mechanisms such as neighbourhood planning if the development was of an appropriate scale and if any physical constraints could be overcome.’

3.2 The Housing Requirements Report submitted by Pioneer Property Services Ltd in support of the applicant disputes the now defined annual Borough housing requirement ( now set at 748 per annum) as “being arguably too low” and bases its argument for “imperative” development in East Woodhay on its own recommendation of a 945 dwellings per annum future need – a 26% surfeit.

12 of 213 approval of a Local Plan work has now commenced for the creation of a Neighbourhood Plan to be commensurate with the outline planning framework for the Borough. It therefore follows that there is no current Neighbourhood Plan available against which to judge the possible extension to beyond existing Settlement Policy Boundaries for the Parish

3.4 The scale of the proposed development is of a wholly disproportionate scale to the size and semi-rural location of Woolton Hill, representing an estimated 4.3% one time increase to the Parish population and an estimated increase of over 6% to the population of Woolton Hill village itself. This can only result in significant impact on existing community and transport services and infrastructure.

3.5 If approved, the 49 dwellings would contribute a highly disproportionate 6.55% of the target additional annual housing provision for the Borough for a year from a community representing only 2.48% of the Borough population in a location substantially removed from the designated areas of predicted population growth.

EWPC notes the exclusion of Woolton Hill as a site for development in the prospective Local Plan, sees no imperative for a development at Harwood Paddock as the Local Plan and considers it disproportionate and inappropriate that the Settlement Policy Boundary of Woolton Hill be amended to facilitate development of this site. A survey of residents supports this view.

4. Premature submission in context of B&DBC Local Plan revision 2013

4.1 B&DBC Full Council approved the draft Local Plan for consultation on 25 July 2013 and has proposed that consultation will commence in mid / late August 2013 with a view to eventual adoption in July 2014. A number of policy statements within this draft plan are applicable to this proposal and should be taken into consideration.

4.2 Draft Policy: SS1 Scale and Distribution of New Housing states: “Within the period 2011 – 2029, the Local Plan will make provision to meet 13,464 dwellings and associated infrastructure. This will be provided by: a) Permitting development and redevelopment within the defined Settlement Policy Boundaries, which contribute to social, economic and environmental well-being. Sites outside of defined Settlement Policy Boundaries will be considered to lie in the countryside;”

The proposed development of up to 49 dwellings will be situated outside existing Settlement Policy Boundaries and in contradiction to the Local Plan once adopted. Further there is no demonstrable need for such development within the Local Plan or Parish Plan for such a dramatic increase in housing. To consider it in advance would not constitute a small scale proposal and would not be needed to meet any future housing needs within the local community.

EWPC considers this application to be premature and disproportionate to local need.

4.3 Draft Policy CN5 states : “New development will be required to provide and contribute towards the provision of additional services, facilities and infrastructure at a rate, scale and pace to meet the needs and requirements that are expected to arise from that development.”

13 of 213

Draft Policy CN6 states: “Development proposals will be permitted where they provide or improve essential services, and sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of communities.”

Draft Policy CN7 states: “Development proposals will be permitted where they: a) Retain and maintain existing facilities which are valued by the community; b) Improve the quality and capacity of facilities valued by the community; c) Provide new facilities, in accordance with adopted council standards, where there is evidence of need that cannot be met by existing provision; d) Are delivered to prescribed timescales to meet the needs of the community that are being provided for.”

The planning application fails to demonstrate adequate provision of or improvement to additional services, facilities and infrastructure at a rate, scale and pace to meet the needs and requirements that arise from that development(e.g. the infant and junior school, doctors’ surgery, church hall, etc), despite imposing additional pressure on them all.

EWPC considers the application fails to demonstrate or provide for a sustainable impact on local services.

4.4 Draft Policy CN8 states: “Development should seek to minimise the need to travel, promote opportunities for sustainable transport modes, improve accessibility to service and support the transition to a low carbon future.”

The proposed development does not demonstrate any reduction in the need to travel, nor does it promote opportunities for sustainable transport modes or improve accessibility to local services. Furthermore, the proposals will result in inappropriate traffic generation, which could compromise highway safety and will have an adverse impact on the operation, safety and accessibility to the local highway network.

EWPC considers the application fails to demonstrate improved accessibility and will indeed be detrimental to already challenged highway systems

4.5 Draft Policy EM1states: “Development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated, through an appropriate assessment, that the proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned.”

The proposed development does not realistically demonstrate sympathy with the character and visual quality of the local area, nor can it be considered to improve and enhance the landscape, visual amenity and scenic quality of a site within the North Wessex Downs AONB.

EWPC considers the application fails to demonstrate appropriate sympathy with the character and quality of the local area.

5. Impact on Local Community services, amenities and infrastructure

5.1 The impact of the dimension of development on a small community has been detailed above. However in feedback to a Parish Council Forum respondents ranked concerns of potential detrimental impact as follows:-

14 of 213

EWPC considers the application wholly disproportionate to need and likely to adversely affect services, amenities and infrastructure.

5.2 Consideration has been given to the inclusion of 0.243 hectares/0.6 acres of land for community use D1/D2 in this application. Some options for its possible use have been suggested which may include, though not exclusively, relocation of health services to be more central to the village with adequate parking, use of land as allotments, relocation of a new community village hall, creation of a new day care centre and general recreation.

5.3 In its Statement of Community Involvement supplied by Curtin & Co the applicant refers to “levels of engagement” with the community. Care should be taken in interpretation of this, especially as the opening premise to the public was a statement that the Borough Council “only has enough deliverable land for 3.4 years supply which represents a significant shortfall of land for housing”. Proposals are now before B&DBC to adequately address this land supply shortfall without recourse to additional land utilisation in East Woodhay. The consequent quoted responses from the attending public should therefore be considered in light of a, perhaps unintentional, misleading premise.

5.4 A further quoted Statement of Community Involvement in the application viz “Following local engagement, there is a clear desire within the community to use this development opportunity to benefit from an improved community facility/use… “should be seen in the context that consideration was between a 67 dwelling development without any community use and a 49 dwelling development with some community use. The option that both applications could be rejected was not made clear to respondents.

EWPC accepts that good use could be made of any available community land. However, it believes that any considered needs for community land should be contained within an appropriate Neighbourhood Plan. This awaits the provision of the B&DBC Local Plan from which overall guiding policies must be derived.

In formulating its response, EWPC has taken due account of:-  independent communications received from parishioners, neighbouring parish councils, societies and local service providers of education and health  the outcome of a public meeting arranged on behalf of the developer (Catesby Kler Land PPL)

15 of 213

 briefings, presentations and communications in support of the application from Catesby Kler Land PPL by Turley Associates, Pioneer Property Services, and Curtin & Co  the national census data for the ward of East Woodhay for 2001 and 2011  the National Planning Policy Framework 2012  the saved policies of the Adopted Local Plan for (1996-2011) for Basingstoke & Deane Borough  the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2008 on Design and Sustainability (special reference: Appendix 7 Places to Live)  the East Woodhay Parish Plan 2007  89% of responding parishioners to a Parish Forum Poll have responded against the granting of permission for the application.”

Comments received 11 September 2013: “The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has reviewed the further documents and see no reason to change the views previously expressed.”

Planning Policy and Implementation Team: Comments:

“Given the current 5 year land supply position, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF applies. However, the significance of the AONB and the weight given to its conservation needs to be taken into account (NPPF Chapter 11) along with the proposal being contrary to Saved Policy C3 and the need to balance the adverse impacts against the benefits the development would bring.”

Housing Services: No objection.

Local Highway Authority: No objection subject to conditions.

Landscape Officer: No objection subject to conditions.

Urban Design Officer: No objection subject to conditions.

Open Spaces Officer: No objection in principle subject to provision of open space and kickabouts in accordance with adopted policy at reserved matters stage.

Biodiversity Officer: No objection subject to conditions and an informative.

Tree Officer: No objection subject to conditions.

Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions.

Drainage Officer: No comment.

Hampshire County Highway Team: No objection subject to provision of S106 contribution to secure off-site highway improvements.

Hampshire County Education Authority: No specific comments received, however comments made within the Scoping Proforma

Hampshire County Archaeologist: No objection.

16 of 213

Hampshire Constabulary: No objection, however wish to reserve the right to comment upon any reserved matters application.

North Wessex Downs AONB Unit: Objection:

“The "presumption" in favour of sustainable development does not apply within AONBs because of Paragraph 14 footnote 9 of the NPPF. The following appeal references confirm this: APP/W0340/A/12/2173977 (paragraph 128), APP/B1605/A/11/2164597 (paragraph 56), and APP/F1610/A/11/2165778 which was also called in by the Secretary of State (now with the High Court) who stated:

"The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the special emphasis in the presumption in favour of granting planning permission in such circumstances does not automatically apply in this case, because of the specific policies in the Framework that indicate development should be restricted and the duty to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB."

In this case there is no need to consider this site for housing, as adequate provision for housing is being made through the Local Plan process.

Basingstoke and Deane is a District where AONB avoidance is an option and where the majority of its settlements and likely housing sites lie outside this nationally protected landscape.

It is noted that provision has been made through Policy SS5 of the draft Local Plan for 150 dwellings to other settlements – however again many options exist outside the AONB which should be considered instead of this site – (NPPF 17 Core Planning Principles “Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework.”)

The AONB is protected by law through the CRoW Act 2000. Through Section 85 of the CRoW Act there is a legal duty on all those in authority to consider the "conservation and enhancement" of the AONB in reaching their decision. House building outside settlement boundaries within the countryside of a nationally protected landscape will not conserve or enhance the natural characteristics of the area and will lead to a serious precedent. There are many parts of the AONB characterised by low density sporadic areas of housing where “infill” may at first seem a logical option. However, by allowing infill of these sites will lead to unsustainable growth and a suburbanisation of the countryside which will have a negative impact on the rural character of what is recognised as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The NPPF confirms at paragraph 115 that AONBs have the highest level of landscape and scenic beauty protection and that "great weight" should be afforded to conserving them. I am pleased to see that the applicant has referred to paragraph 116 of the NPPF. It should be noted that the starting point for such applications in the AONB according to this paragraph are that applications should be “refused”.

We do not disagree with the previous Inspector’s comments about the level of landscape impact if this site were to be carefully developed. However, the protection of the AONB is in the wider public interest and we believe this District can meet its 5 year housing obligations without having to consider sites in settlements of this size within the nationally protected AONB.”

17 of 213

Natural England: No objection.

Environment Agency: No objection: Comments refer the LPA to the Standing Advice produced by the Agency on minimising flood risk.

Thames Water (Wastewater): “A Sewerage Impact Study has been requested by the developer and is in progress. On completion of the study, any infrastructures upgrades required will be identified. Any upgrades identified will need to be implemented prior to occupation.”

Thames Water: Supplementary Comments:

Waste Comments: 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 a 'Grampian Style' condition imposed.

Wastewater: A Wastewater Network Impact Study is in progress, the results of which will identify if capacity is available in the existing wastewater infrastructure or whether upgrades are required. Therefore, a grampian style condition should be applied to ensure that no discharge from the development is permitted until any upgrades identified by the impact study are implemented.

Public Observations

Forty five letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:

 Premature.  Outside SPB and not considered as part of the strategic allocation in the SHLAA.  No neighbourhood plan has come forward for alternative development.  Prejudice community to plan development for this site.  Unwarranted development forced on the village by developers.  Unsustainable as increases need for car journeys.  Village has some facilities but not sufficient to support a new development.  Not appropriate to amend SPB of Woolton Hill to facilitate this development.  Emerging Local Plan states that significant development should be in centres that have sufficient facilities to minimise car use.  Development would be equivalent to 1-2% of the Boroughs housing need.  Housing need report is out of line with and against the thrust of the Council’s policy to focus future housing in strategic places.  Housing provision should be based on a need for that housing, not just to satisfy a numbers game.  No evidence base for need in Woolton Hill.  This would result in a 15% increase in the size of the village.  Large development for a village that does not have infrastructure of a town.  Development would be in the far northern extremity of the Borough where the development would clearly not serve the housing needs of the Basingstoke urban area.  Development proposed in Newbury will meet any need for housing in this area.  Development in Newbury will place increased pressure on existing infrastructure in the village.  Permission refused on this site 10 years ago, nothing has changed. 18 of 213

 Contrary to NPPF as development would result in adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  Contrary to saved policies of existing Local Plan.  Development is contrary to the draft policies of the emerging Local Plan.  If a development of this size can skirt around the Local Plan, why bother with one at all?  Site is within the AONB - surely we should be protecting these areas.  Area makes a valuable contribution to the local landscape.  Field provides a vital green lung.  Destroy the AONB and the identity of the village.  Proposal would turn this village into suburbia.  Scale of development is inappropriate.  The density of the Linden Homes site is higher than that of the village as a whole and was only achieved on appeal.  There is no going back once a development is built.  Linden Homes development is an eyesore.  Site contributes to the character of the village.  Character of village would be changed by development.  Destroy uniqueness of area.  Development is characteristic of a suburban environment.  Development will look very similar to Royal Chase, which is regarded as a blot on the landscape.  Completely out of character with the village.  Detrimental to the village.  Not a high quality residential environment.  Over dense, insufficient room for pavements and landscaping.  Cramped development.  Development of 2.5 storey homes and townhouses will be out of character with the village.  Large dwellings with disproportionately small gardens.  Roads put under additional pressure.  Speeding is a problem in the village.  Penwood crossroads will not cope with more users.  Road outside school is congested already.  Traffic assessment is incorrect and underestimates the impact of this development on existing roads.  Tile Barn Row is not a well-maintained road.  No parking figures given for the 67 house development.  Houses should have at least 3 parking spaces excluding garages.  Traffic generated by construction traffic will be too great for Tile Barn Row, which is a small country lane.  Increase in traffic would affect the day to day working of the Gainsborough Stud.  Scale of development will affect highway safety for both vehicles and pedestrians.  Tile Barn Row should be widened, have a footpath installed and be lit, to avoid accidents arising from existing speeding and increased traffic from this development.  Traffic assessments grossly underestimate the additional car journeys arising from this development.  Do not require road improvements if no increase in housing.  Proposed access to site is too close to existing Broadlayings junction.  One access to this site seems poorly thought through. 19 of 213

 Local roads will become rat runs  No need for affordable homes in the village.  Already have enough social housing.  No need for small properties.  Young people moving in to social houses will need a car as no public transport.  No local employment.  Is 40% affordable housing really right for Woolton Hill?  Local infrastructure cannot cope with development.  Local schools cannot take more pupils.  Water system cannot cope.  Putting additional pressure on the water system could be an eco-disaster.  Need to robustly assess any drainage strategy.  Flooding issues in village.  Paddock is constantly flooded. Nothing is being done to prevent flooding in the village – drains are blocked and are not being cleared.  Why is this village even considered for development given current infrastructure issues?  Local doctors surgery cannot cope with new residents.  Already difficult to get an appointment with a doctor given recent influx of new residents.  Surgery has little parking currently.  Woolton Hill is known for power outages.  Additional housing will exacerbate these issues.  Impact on quality of education environment if schools are extended and children placed in temporary classrooms. Infant School cannot educate all children in its catchment and has insufficient space to expand.  If schools cannot expand to take more children, where will the children go to school?  Overlooking.  Overshadowing.  Loss of privacy.  Noise and disturbance for existing residents.  Moved to village due to the peace and quiet.  Loss of view.  Residents have endured months of building works from Royal Chase development and have endured enough.  Current amenities match the number of residents and achieves a balance between rural beauty and amenities.  Additional residents would stretch these resources.  Loss of green space.  Existing green space should be preserved.  Loss of trees.  Many trees on site are protected and will be impacted upon by this development.  Insufficient attention paid to improving the environment.  Little green space within the development.  Better if a significant part of the site was not subject to development.  Impact on wildlife.  Loss of habitat.  Wildlife survey unrepresentative due to reports of load explosions on the field. 20 of 213

 Rumour has it that bird scarers being used.  Net loss of biodiversity.  S106 payments should have no bearing whatsoever on the decision to grant an application.  Evidence that S106 monies from Harwood Court spent elsewhere in the county and not a single penny went to the Parish.  Demonstrated that these payments do not come back to the local area to compensate for the impact on infrastructure and the loss of amenity.  No definitive plan as to how money will be spent so no reassurance that adverse impacts will be satisfactorily overcome.  Statement of community involvement does not accurately reflect strong objections to the proposals.  Statements are misleading and many statements disputed.  Factual errors in documentation.  Standard boilerplate without understanding the particular context of this site.  Street lighting will ruin night skies.  A travesty.  Loss of value.  Who will buy these homes when not all the new homes at Harwood Court have been sold?  Land should be used for the community e.g. a small shopping centre, hairdresser, pharmacy, greengrocer, village hall etc.  Litter left by construction works is disgusting.  Development is not wanted by local residents and not needed in this area.

Three letters of support have been received raising the following comments:

 As a local business providing retail and post services to Woolton Hill, we take an interest in applications local to our shop and support these applications.  Proposals address the need for further accommodation in Woolton Hill.  Area of land is in need of development.  Open space provided.  Increased housing will support local businesses.  Adds positively to the local community.  Born and raised in Woolton Hill and would like to move back to raise a family.  There is a lack of affordable housing in the village, so cannot afford to move back.  Village needs more housing so people can move back and give to the community.  Appreciate Woolton Hill is a pretty village, and a desirable place to live, however everyone should have the same change to choose to move to a village like this, to raise a family and contribute to village life.  If more affordable housing is not available, how can local schools continue?  They will just continue to take children from other areas, like Newbury and Thatcham.  Eventually Woolton Hill will just have an aging population.  The paddock has not been used by the village, but now that the land is proposed for housing, villagers seem to wish to use the land.  Use of the land for allotments seems strange as houses in Woolton Hill have gardens which could be used for growing vegetables.  Three is plenty of unused land in Woolton Hill.  Paddock has never been suitable for anything other than building.  Building can only improve this unused land. 21 of 213

 Building will bring more resources to the village.

In response to the consultation on additional information received, 5 letters have been received making the following comments:

 Not addressed concerns.  Legal view bases its view on three recent cases, and focuses primarily on numbers and not context.  Tetbury and Cuckfield are significantly larger villages, and therefore the developments are smaller in proportion than is the case with Harwood Paddock.  Although no specific definition as to what constitutes major development, scale and proportion of a proposed development in its setting is an essential element.  Precedent for other developers to use similar arguments regarding development in an AONB and proved local need v’s Borough need.  How is this not major development?  This is a significantly large development, disproportionate in its environment.  Stage 1 RSA carried out prior to the start of term so irrelevant.  Although no accidents recorded, there have been many close shaves.  Why should residents be forced to walk through a new housing estate?  Bat survey proves there are bats.  How can this be solving a housing issue if larger properties in Royal Chase remain unsold?  People want a nice house with a big garden not an estate house costing the same.  Money making scheme.  Does not contribute to the village at all.  Issues relating to school places, traffic, sewerage not addressed.  Tone of letter from the applicant is pressuring the Council to make a premature decision.  Application should go before an appropriate planning committee rather than being determined by a Planning Officer.  Development is not needs as at least 7000 new homes proposed to be built in a 20- 25mile radius, with 3000 of these already granted.

Relevant Planning History

BDB/46230 Erection of business units, new access, associated Withdrawn car parking and landscaping 18/09/00

BDB/51776 Erection of business units, new access, associated Refused car parking and landscaping 07/06/02

BDB/54544 Erection of 5 no. business units, new access, Granted associated car parking and extensive landscaping 06/10/03

BDB/58703 Erection of 5 no. business units, new access, Granted associated car parking and extensive landscaping 12/08/04

BDB/59580 Erection of 5 no. business units, new access and Granted associated car parking 12/04/06

22 of 213

BDB/63355 Erection of 5 no. two storey office units (Amendment Granted to planning permission BDB/59580 for re-design of 26/07/06 units 1, 3, 4 and 5 and alterations to parking arrangements)

BDB/64299 Repositioning of unit 3 and amendment to parking Granted layout for unit 3 (Amendment to planning permission 13/10/06 BDB 63355)

BDB/65674 Erection of 2 no. B1 office units with associated Granted parking 23/05/07

BDB/72168 Outline application for the erection of 20 retirement Refused dwellings (Class C3 - managed residential 11/06/10 accommodation for the elderly) including layout and Appeal access. Dismissed 27/06/11

BDB/74064 Erection of 16 no. dwellings including associated Refused infrastructure and landscaping 22/06/11 Appeal Allowed 06/01/12

Assessment

The assessment on this application is broken down into the following sections:

 Principle of Development  Highway Assessment  Impact on Landscape Character and Visual Amenity  Affordable Housing  Housing Mix  Impact on Amenity  Impact on the Natural Environment  Flood Risk and Drainage  Code for Sustainable Homes  Local Infrastructure and Community Facilities  Consultation Comments  Conclusion

It should be noted that the Local Planning Authority has confirmed that an Environment Impact Assessment is not required in this instance.

In addition, it should be noted that this application would, if approved, constitute a departure from the development plan since granting planning permission for residential development on this site would not accord with the provisions of a development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated.

The application was not publicised correctly via the site notice or press notice as a departure, and therefore a revised site notice was displayed on 16 September 2013 and a revised press notice was displayed on 19 September 2013. Given that the nature of the

23 of 213 proposal has not changed, and that the application has been consulted upon publically by the Council and widely by the Parish Council and applicant, it is considered unlikely that any further significant objections would be received. However, the recommendation made by Officers is subject to completion of this public consultation period and receipt of no further significant objection to the principle of a departure.

Should the Council resolve to approve this application, there will be no requirement to refer the application to the Secretary of State as a departure from the Local Plan as the relevant regulations have either been met or do not apply in this case. The Secretary of State does however maintain the power to call-in the application up until the point a decision is issued.

Principle of Development

This site lies outside, but is immediately adjacent to the Settlement Policy Boundary of Woolton Hill (as defined under Saved Policy D5 of the BDBLP). The site is therefore within the countryside and the proposed development would constitute a departure from the Development Plan. As noted above, the site is also within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

It should also be noted that the Draft Local Plan, currently available for public consultation until 4 October 2013, has no weight in decision-making in accordance with Paragraph 116 of the NPPF. Therefore, no weight has been given to it in forming this recommendation.

 Sustainable Development

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

In this regard, housing development will assist in boosting the housing market and contributing to the economy of the Borough. Additional households in an area will make a social contribution through supporting and sustaining existing community services, creating a vibrant community and providing housing in an area to support present and future needs. Through a comprehensive landscape management plan, the preservation of existing protected trees and biodiversity a development can perform an environmental role (discussed in more detail in the remainder of this report). Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development would constitute sustainable development under the NPPF.

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

24 of 213

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states: “At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking … For decision-taking, this means1:

 approving development proposals that accord with the Development Plan without delay; and  where the Development Plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting planning permission unless: o any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole; or o specific policies in the Framework indicate that the development should be restricted2.”

The site is located within the North Wessex Downs AONB, which is afforded the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty as recognised by Paragraph 115 of the NPPF. Paragraph 116 goes on to state that “planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of:

 the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;  the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and  any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.”

It is therefore necessary to consider whether the proposal constitutes “major development” within the AONB. If so, it would be appropriate to apply Paragraph 116 of the NPPF and it would then be necessary to consider whether there are “exceptional circumstances” which demonstrate that such major development should be permitted in the AONB in the public interest. It is important to note that only “major developments” within an AONB would need to satisfy the exceptions test. Therefore, if an application is not considered to be “major development”, there is no requirement to show that exceptional circumstances are met or that granting planning permission for the development would be in the public interest. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF would however remain relevant and the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply. It would clearly still be necessary to give full consideration to the impact of the development on the landscape character and scenic beauty of the area as a whole and to consider the benefits of the proposal against the impacts. In short, if the benefits outweigh the impacts, then the development should be approved. These matters are considered in the following sections.

Definition of Major Development within the AONB

The applicant has submitted a legal opinion in support of this application. In respect of this proposal for 67 dwellings, the applicant has been unable to demonstrate that the proposal is, or is not, classified as a major development and thus whether exceptional

1 Unless material considerations indicate otherwise 2 For example those policies relating to designated sites such as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (see Paragraph 116) 25 of 213 circumstances need to be demonstrated to show it is in the public interest. Officers have therefore sought to make their own assessment, which is set out below.

The NPPF provides no definition of what constitutes “major development”. It is therefore necessary to review previous appeal decisions, which act as case-law, in making a determination. A summary of recent decisions is provided below:

Berrells Road, Tetbury (APP/F1610/A/12/2173305) - Secretary of State (SoS) Decision Letter dated 13 February 2013:

This was an outline application for up to 39 dwellings within the Cotswold AONB. The SoS agreed with the Inspectors recommendation that the appeal should be allowed. Like the Inspector, the SoS saw no reason to differ from a joint conclusion between the parties that in the particular circumstances of this case, the proposal did not constitute major development. However the SoS agreed that this does not lessen the great weight that should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONB’s and that “sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that 39 dwelling could be accommodated on the site, with the necessary planting, landscaping and open space...” (Paragraph 19)

In conclusion, in this case, the proposal for up to 39 dwellings in the AONB did not constitute “major development”.

Land north of Brylanes Close, Cuckfield, West Sussex (APP/D3830/A/10/2132146) – Inspector Decision Letter dated 28 April 2011:

This was an application for a residential development of 42 dwellings, access road and children’s play area. It is important to note that this decision was issued prior to the publication of the NPPF, however the decision is relevant for two reasons as the Inspector rejected the Council’s suggestions that the definition of major development for the purposes of PPS7 (Planning Policy Statement 7) should be the same as the definition used in the General Development Procedure Order (now the Development Management Procedure Order 2010) as “this was devised for administrative purposes in connection with the local publication of applications. In my view and despite its acceptance in appeal decision ref: APP/P12114/A/09/2100514, where its use was not in dispute, it is not appropriate for use in the circumstances of this appeal. PPS7 talks about major developments that raise issues of national significance. Although important locally, the appeal proposal is not of national significance.” (Paragraph 20)

For completeness, APP/P12114/A/09/2100514 referred to above was concerned with an application for creation of a cricket ground in an AONB and as such is considered of no relevance to the assessment of this application.

In summary, in the Cuckfield case, it was considered that the residential development of 42 dwellings in the AONB did not constitute “major development”.

Highfield Farm, Tetbury (APP/F1610/A/11/2165778) – SoS Decision Letter dated 13 February 2013:

26 of 213 affordable housing provision, as well as the main considerations weighing against the proposal being the reduction in the natural beauty of the AONB. Having weighed up all of the material considerations, the SoS agreed that the considerations in favour of the proposal outweighed the conflict with the Development Plan and the appeal was allowed.

The applicant has also referred the Council to an application determined by Ryedale District Council in April 2013. The site, known as Field No 4848, Station Road, Ampleforth, Helmsley, was subject to an application (reference no. 12/00618/MFUL) for the construction of 30 dwellings in the Howardian Hills AONB. The Ryedale DC Planning Committee, at its meeting on 12 March 2012, resolved to refuse the application. However, this decision was reconsidered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 9 April 2013 following receipt of Counsels Opinion which advised that the application did not amount to “major development” in an AONB. Whilst the Ryedale DC Planning Committee ultimately refused this application on other grounds, the Committee agenda states: “The Council Solicitor advised Members that the proposed development was not major development for the purposes of paragraph 116 of the NPPF and that this professional opinion was supported by the opinion of Queens Counsel which Members had seen”.

The applicant’s examples indicate that a development of up to 42 units within an AONB was not considered to be major development, whereas a development of up to 250 units did constitute major development within an AONB. There are no examples that are directly comparable in size to this current proposal. Cuckfield is the closest comparable example in terms of the size of the development; however Cuckfield is a large village in the Mid Sussex District of West Sussex. Its nearest town is Haywards Heath, which lies 2 miles to the southeast, and Cuckfield itself is designated as a Civil Parish which had a population of 3,266 persons in the 2001 census. Woolton Hill is not considered to be comparable to Cuckfield, being a rural village without the range of services available at, or in close proximity to Cuckfield. The nearest town to Woolton Hill is Newbury, which lies 6 miles to the north-east. Woolton Hill is within the Civil Parish of East Woodhay, which, as of the 2001 census had a population of 2,794 across the whole Parish.

In summary, the village of Woolton Hill itself is significantly smaller than Cuckfield and is not considered to be comparable. The proposed development at Woolton Hill is clearly larger than that considered in the Cuckfield case. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the proposed development of up to 67 residential units within Woolton Hill would constitute major development within the AONB within this context, and therefore the three exceptions tests set out within Paragraph 116 of the NPPF should be applied in determining this application.

 Need for the Development

The NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to actively manage their housing land supply, for growth for 10 years and, where possible, for 15 years. This includes a requirement to demonstrate a five year supply of specific deliverable sites. In addition, the NPPF adds an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, Local Planning Authorities should increase the buffer to 20%. This latter requirement is not, however, considered to apply to the Borough given high levels of housing delivery in recent years.

The Borough Council’s 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR), which was reported to the Planning and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee (P&I OSCOM) in October 2012, set out the Borough Council’s 5 year housing land supply position for 1st April 2012 27 of 213 against three different housing targets. These included the South East Plan target of 945 dwellings per annum (dpa) and the locally derived housing target of 770 dpa, which was agreed by Cabinet in October 2012 as an appropriate interim figure for land supply purposes (a range of 730 to 770 dpa was agreed for future planning purposes, subject to further evidence).

The 770 dpa figure equates to a five year housing requirement of 3,850 units over the period 2012/13 to 2016/17. The additional 5% buffer required by the NPPF leads to a further 193 units over the five year period, leading to an overall requirement of 4,043 units or 809 dpa. The completions over the next five years are predicted to reach 2,751 units. As such, the Borough Council can only demonstrate 3.4 years of supply against the current locally derived housing target. It should be noted that on 6 June 2013 Cabinet agreed a new locally derived housing figure of 748 units per annum based on the publication of new data and also the completion of further investigation and modelling. This change does not affect the Borough’s overall lack of a 5 year land supply.

The lack of a 5 year land supply is recognised in the October 2012 Committee Report to P&I OSCOM which states that “officers will need to continue to advise whether development should be permitted on greenfield sites in advance of them being formally allocated through the Local Plan process”. Whilst this site will not be allocated through the Local Plan process, it is clear that if this site were developed in the short term, it would positively contribute towards the five year land supply position.

In summary, in respect of need, given the Borough cannot demonstrate a sufficient supply of housing land to meet the housing requirements for the next 5 years, as required by the NPPF, it is considered that there is a need for the proposed housing development.

It should be noted that the applicant has submitted a Housing Requirements Report prepared by Pioneer Housing and Development Consultants in support of this application; however this report draws different findings and different conclusions than the Borough Council’s evidence base prepared to support the draft Local Plan, particularly with regard to land supply and housing requirements. In particular, the report suggests that an annual supply of 954 new homes would be appropriate for this Borough and concludes that the level of housing proposed by the Council (735 to 770) is too low and unlikely to provide for sufficient growth in the workforce. Given that the Council’s evidence base has been endorsed by Full Council, and is used to support the current consultation on the draft Local Plan, it is considered to be a robust evidence base on which to assess this planning application.

 Cost and Scope of developing elsewhere

Whilst there is a preference in planning terms for directing development towards previously developed land, rather than to greenfield sites, and particularly a preference to avoid development within an AONB where possible, there is presently no evidence available to demonstrate that an alternative site(s) would be available now to meet the current housing shortfall. As above, no material weight can be attached to the emerging Local Plan, and therefore the Council has no evidence that a suitable site would be available elsewhere.

28 of 213

(BDB/77382) however a decision on that appeal would not be made until early next year, and even if this appeal were to be allowed, there would still be a shortfall in housing.

As such, the Council cannot demonstrate the housing need could be met on a suitable site outside the AONB.

 Impact on the Landscape and scope for mitigation

It is considered that the proposed development, through the introduction of new built form together with the loss of an open field would not constitute the “conservation of landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB”. It is also considered that the proposal would result in some harm to the AONB in the vicinity of the application site, but that this would be a localised harm. Woolton Hill is a village covered by the AONB. The site itself is surrounded on three sides by existing residential development and a recent development has been allowed for 16 dwellings to the north-western corner of the site. This is an outline planning application, and through careful consideration of the layout of the site and the design of the development at reserved matters stage, it will be possible to secure a development that is in keeping with the character of Woolton Hill. Also, through a comprehensive landscaping scheme and management plan, the impact of this development can be, in part, mitigated. On balance, there will be an impact on the AONB through permitting this development; however the impact can be mitigated through good design such that the effects of the impact would not be significantly detrimental.

 Conclusion

There is a housing shortfall within the Borough, and the Borough is unable to demonstrate that a suitable site would be available to meet this shortfall. In the context of Paragraph 116, these amount to “exceptional circumstances” where permitting the proposed development of up to 67 units could reasonably be considered to meet the wider “public interest”, in the terms of the NPPF. There would be a localised impact on the AONB through permitting this development, however it is considered that this impact can be mitigated through design and landscaping, such that the character of Woolton Hill is not adversely affected. The presumption in favour of sustainable development at Paragraph 14 therefore still applies and the adverse impacts of the development must be weighed in the balance against the wider benefits, an assessment on these issues is made in the sections below and a conclusion drawn at the end of this report.

 Prematurity

The Planning System General Principles (2006) states that, in some circumstances, it may be justifiable to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity where a Development Plan Document (DPD) is being prepared or is under review but which has not yet been adopted. Applications for housing could be justifiably refused if the proposed development is so substantial or where the cumulative effect would be so significant that granting permission could prejudice the DPD by predetermining decisions about scale, location or phasing of new development which are being addressed in the DPD.

The proposed development would have an impact on only a small area of the Borough and is not considered to be so significant that it would prejudice the scale and location of development in the Local Plan, given that the proposal (for up to 67 units) would amount to just 1.7% of the 5 year housing land requirement and less than 0.6% of the overall 15 year requirement. Approving this application would not be premature in Officer’s view.

29 of 213

Highway Assessment

In terms of the level of overall accessibility to the site, the site is regarded as unsustainable. Woolton Hill is not served by a rail station. There is an “on demand” bus service serving the village, operated by Cango, however this is an infrequent service and must be booked in advance. There is a bus service from Andover to Newbury that runs via Woolton Hill. The timetable would allow residents to commute into Newbury before 9am for employment, but the service does not start sufficiently early for commuting to Andover. Woolton Hill contains a village store, providing daily essentials, however the nearest larger supermarkets are in Newbury. There are primary schools within Woolton Hill, however no secondary school. It is therefore considered that any development within the village would be largely dependent upon a private motor vehicle hence why the site is considered unsustainable.

The site is bounded to the north by Tile Barn Row which has an imposed speed limit of 30mph and no street lighting. Some of the modern, residential roads in the vicinity do have street lighting. Tile Barn Row is consistently level along its length. There is however no footway along the site frontage. There is a footway beginning at its junction with Greenways, some 250m to the west.

There is an access gate from the site onto Cutters Hill Road (also known locally as Broadlayings and marked as such on the submitted plans), which lies to the east and this connects with a footway on the north side of the road.

The application is made in outline; however details of the means of access are to be agreed at this stage. In this regard, the proposed site access arrangements include a new vehicle access onto Tile Barn Row; a pedestrian access to Cutters Hill Road and a separate pedestrian access to Tile Barn row to the north west of the site.

A Transport Assessment (TA) has been submitted and this provides information on surveyed traffic flow and speeds, estimated traffic generation, analysis of the highway network, traffic accidents and non-car use. The TA details that the existing weekday vehicle flows on Tile Barn Row are 352 vehicles northbound and 346 vehicles southbound. The TA also reveals that the average vehicle speed (corrected for wet weather) is 34.2mph northbound and 33.7mph southbound, which is in excess of the posted speed limit.

Traffic accident data have been analysed, and it is noted that a serious accident was recorded at the A343 junction probably caused by driver action. No severe accidents have been recorded on Tile Barn Row.

The TRICS database has been used to estimate trips per dwelling and for the proposed 67 dwellings, it is estimated that there would be an additional 37 vehicle trips on the network in the morning peak hour and 41 vehicle trips on the network in the evening peak hour. The Local Highway Authority advises that this would result in a modest increase of traffic onto the highway network of one extra vehicle every one to two minutes in the peak hours. It is however noted that Woolton Hill is an unsustainable location and therefore the actual trip rates for the development may be marginally higher, given that there is likely to be less use of bicycles and public transport in this area. No objection is raised to the impact of increased vehicle trips as the local highway network in the vicinity of the site has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increase.

30 of 213

A simple T-junction is proposed to provide vehicle access to and from the site to serve the proposed development. The Highway Officer has confirmed that the proposed design is suitable to accommodate the vehicle traffic arising from this development, however as there is a fall from Tile Barn Row into the site details of gradients shall be required. Therefore, conditions are recommended to control the detailed design of the vehicle access.

The proposed visibility splays at the new vehicle access are calculated at 52m which are correctly calculated from measured traffic speeds. A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit has been undertaken and has not identified any safety problems in connection with the applicants submitted access proposals or Transport Assessment. As such, there is no objection to the proposed vehicle access.

In terms of the pedestrian accesses, the Highway Officer advises that details including construction and visibility splays shall be required and these can be secured via condition; however there is no objection to the proposed location of the pedestrian access points.

Hampshire County Council (HCC) has commented that the submitted TA has identified an existing speeding issue on Tile Barn Row, in that the average vehicle speed is in excess of the posted speed limit. HCC have therefore advised that it will be necessary to consider and assess this matter further. Depending upon the outcomes of HCC’s assessment, it may be that traffic calming measures on the highway would be necessary.

In addition, HCC has commented that there is currently no footpath along Tile Barn Row connecting the application with existing developments in Woolton Hill. HCC have therefore requested that the applicant make provision for a footpath as part of this development. The indicative site plan proposes a footpath through the site, from the proposed pedestrian access onto Cutters Hill Road, to the proposed pedestrian access on Tile Barn Road. Whilst the provision of the footpath through the site is encouraged, HCC have stated that a footpath along Tile Barn Road, connecting to Greenways and Cutters Hill Road, would be preferable. The applicant has prepared an illustrative plan to demonstrate that there would be space for a path to be provided along the existing grass verge along the southern side of Tile Barn Row. A no-dig method of construction would be necessary to minimise any impact on the Root Protection Areas of protected trees, and therefore it is likely that a public footpath, as requested by HCC could be provided.

The applicant has demonstrated the options available for pedestrian access to the proposed development, and will make a BEST contribution secured via a S106 legal agreement, which will fund the provision of a footpath. This money will then enable HCC to determine, in conjunction with the Parish Council, the final details of the scheme to be considered and agreed and for the footpath to be provided prior to occupation of the development.

The site is situated within the ‘rural’ zone for the purposes of assessing the provision of residential motor vehicle, secure cycle parking provision, and refuse/recycling facilities. This is an outline application and therefore details of the parking provision are not known at this stage, however it would be expected that all parking demand would be accommodated within the site and that the provision is in accordance with the Residential Parking Standards SPD. Secure cycle parking will also need to accord with the adopted standards, and again it is expected that adequate provision in accordance with these standards could be made within the development, either within a garage serving a dwelling or within a purpose built store within the garden. Similarly, provision for refuse and

31 of 213 recycling facilities would be made within the curtilage of each property and would need to accord with the adopted standards.

In summary, the proposed development would provide safe and suitable vehicle access to the site, and the additional traffic arising from this development could be accommodated on site without detriment to the local highway network. A contribution towards BEST will be secured via the S106 agreement, to secure enhancements to pedestrian, cycle and highway infrastructure in the vicinity of the site. This will include providing a suitable footway to serve the proposed development, connecting to the existing residential areas, and investigating and if necessary providing traffic calming along Tile Barn Row. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to accord with Saved Policies E1, A1 and A2 of the Local Plan and the NPPF.

Impact on Landscape Character and Visual Amenity

The site is located in the far north west of the Borough and lies within the North Wessex Downs AONB, which is afforded the highest status of protection from development as recognised by Paragraph 115 of the NPPF. Paragraph 115 states: “Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.”

As set out above, Paragraph 116 states that planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. However, there is no definition within the NPPF as to what constitutes major development. Taking into consideration the character of the site, the size of the development and the local context, the Local Planning Authority are of the opinion that the proposed development is considered to be a major development. The three tests as set out under Paragraph 116 have been considered above, however this section focuses upon the impact of the development upon the environment and landscape and the extent to which this can be moderated.

 Existing Landscape Character

The site is found within the Highclere and Burghclere Landscape Character Area, as identified in the Borough’s Landscape Assessment SPG. This area generally has a quiet, rural character and is located away from larger residential areas. There is some noise and visual intrusion from the A34 and A343. The area has a high percentage of woodland cover, particularly close to Penwood and Highclere, where extensive coniferous plantation encloses and contains views. There is low intervisibility across the area, with vegetation and the low-lying nature of the landscape containing views.

Woolton Hill is one of the numerous scattered villages within the area; however the village has been subject to recent residential development and has a relatively high local population which results in a more suburbanised character than other villages within the East Woodhay Parish.

The application site is a small scale field enclosed by an intact hedgerow structure. The local housing vernacular is a mixture of ages and styles. The area does have a spacious character with dwellings being located along narrow and winding lanes and roads. Dwellings are generally large and detached, set in generous gardens to the front and rear with mature vegetation along the boundaries. 32 of 213

 Existing Visual Amenity

There are no Public Rights of Way (PROW) in the immediate vicinity of the site however there are glimpsed public views of the site through existing trees and other vegetation from Tile Barn Row, which is a narrow country lane. Views into the site from the northern end of Greenways are also possible. Tile Barn Row has an open, spacious and rural feel along the section of the land running parallel to the site due to the presence of the managed parkland and equestrian land on the northern side of the lane.

There are clear views through to the site from the gaps in between the trees and vegetation along the northern boundary. These views from Tile Barn Row looking south east and south west are towards a large and unspoilt area of green open space with mature trees along the south eastern boundary. Existing housing along the north eastern boundary is however evident in these views, and the recent development at the Linden Homes site is prominent from the lane. There are also extensive private views into the site from the rear gardens of properties that surround the wider area of scrubland.

 Impact on landscape character

The Local Plan Inspector’s report from 2005, which comments on the Harwood Paddock site states at Paragraph 1.46.2:

“This site was the subject of an objection at the last Development Plan Inquiry some 10 years ago. The proposal then was for 60 houses. My colleague concluded then that the village contained only limited community services, did not have the potential to be adequately served by public transport and should therefore be regarded as an unsustainable location for development. He went on to conclude that development of this site would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape. Also that the loss of a valuable visual break in the built fabric of the village would be compensated for by the screening of rear gardens that would be provided by the new development. However, in his judgement, these matters were outweighed by the village’s fundamental unsustainability. On these visual issues I find no reason to take a different view to my colleague, but there have been changes in the level of services.”

The application site is generally well contained and therefore it is considered that this proposal, whilst changing the character of the site from that of an open field, would not have a significantly adverse impact on the wider surrounding AONB. It is considered that any impact would be localised. The Landscape Officer comments that although there would be harm to the landscape character of the site, as the proposed development introduces built form into a site that is currently devoid of built form, this could be suitably mitigated against by creating a high quality scheme that knits into the existing built fabric of Woolton Hill. The Landscape Officer considers that such a scheme should maintain the spacious and semi-rural character of Woolton Hill, thereby incorporating a high proportion of large, detached dwellings, set in generous gardens with mature vegetation along the boundaries.

The site is sloping in nature and some concern was raised regarding the potential for terracing and retaining walls to accommodate this development. These are not a feature found on the site or in the immediate vicinity and are unlikely to be supported as this could potentially urbanise the site adversely. Therefore, the applicant was requested to submit additional information during consideration of this application, which included cross 33 of 213 sections of the development and indicative streetscenes. This information demonstrates that some cutting and filling will be necessary as well as some terracing due to the topography of the site, however the illustrative plans are considered to demonstrate that the proposed development could be accommodated within the site in such a way so as to respect the existing character of Woolton Hill. Therefore, it is considered that the impact of this development could be minimised through careful design at reserved matters stage.

The access point is considered to be acceptable, as all existing trees on the site are being retained.

 Impact on visual amenity

The Landscape Officer considers that the visual impact of the development would be moderate. Clearly the development will be visible, and the open character of the site would be lost. However as the site is well contained, and bounded on three sides by existing residential development, it is considered that this impact would not be adverse. Furthermore, it is clear that through careful design, such as maintaining a spacious character to the development with gaps between buildings, together with a robust landscape strategy for the site, that the visual impact of the development could be mitigated.

It should also be noted that Natural England has raised no objection to this application, stating that due to the nature and location of the proposals this development is unlikely to adversely affect the purpose of the North Wessex Downs AONB designation. Natural England also welcomes the retention of existing trees within the site, and recommends that planting along the boundaries is strengthened in order to filter views of the development from the surrounding area.

 Density

The applicant proposes a net developable area of 2.5 ha which equates to a housing density of approximately 27 dwellings per hectare (dph). This density calculation does not include open space, clearly if open space were included, the density would be reduced.

The proposed density of development at 27dph would result in a development typically comprising a large proportion of detached houses with some semi-detached and terraced housing to provide smaller units. Given that a similar density of development is found in the surrounding area, it is considered that the site has capacity to accommodate up to 67 dwellings.

 Illustrative Masterplan

Whilst there is no objection to the principle of the proposed development, there are concerns regarding the indicative layout that has been submitted. Whilst Officers are satisfied that up to 67 dwellings could be accommodated within the site without detriment to the character of the area, revisions to the indicative layout would be necessary prior to submission and acceptance of a reserved matters scheme.

The Illustrative Masterplan contains a number of features which demonstrate that the site would have capacity to accommodate 67 dwellings. These features include: front gardens of a moderate depth and spacing of several metres between houses which will help to create a more rural or suburban streetscene in keeping with the surrounding area; a large proportion of detached dwellings; and slightly curving roads which reflect the street pattern 34 of 213 of the surrounding area. The location of an open space on the eastern boundary also enables deep views into the site from Tile Barn Row which helps the creation of a less dense character.

Both the Urban Design and Landscape Officer’s consider that some of the units indicated along the southern boundary may be too close to the trees along this boundary. There is also concern that the dwellings indicated within the south west corner of the site could result in an overly urban and cramped appearance, due to their bulk and large footprint. Therefore careful consideration should be paid to designing a layout that maintains both a spacious character that allows sufficient space for landscaping, whilst still maintaining sufficient separation from existing mature trees to avoid shading issues, which could put future pressure on these important trees. Additionally, careful consideration needs to be given to the design and layout of the south western part of the site to ensure sufficient usable amenity space is provided for all proposed dwellings. However, given the modest density of the site, it is considered that these matters could be resolved through the detailed design and layout stage under the reserved matters process.

 Open Space

Given the distances to existing green space and the fact that the existing facilities would not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional number of residents resulting from this development, all green space required to meet the Green Space Standards must be provided on-site.

The total quantity of green space required for the proposed housing development is 5145.6sq.m. This would need to be multi-functional green space including:

 space suitable for one kickabout area (minimum 1600sq.m. plus 10m buffer to housing);  accessible natural green space; and  space for relaxation and informal recreation including seating, footpaths and landscaped areas.

The area indicated for kickabout would provide 1600m² and therefore the applicant has demonstrated that adequate provision in accordance with policy could be made within this site. The Open Spaces Officer therefore raises no objection to the proposal, subject to agreement of the detailed design requirements of the kickabout at reserved matters stage.

The attenuation areas will need to be accessible to residents to provide accessible natural greenspace, and this can be secured through the detailed design stage.

It is considered acceptable for equipped play to be secured through an off-site contribution. This scheme includes on-site toddler play provision, which is considered acceptable. The Open Spaces Officer also advises that natural play features such as logs, mounds, tree swings could be located within the landscaped areas.

 Conclusion

It is considered that the site has capacity to accommodate up to 67 dwellings without detriment to the landscape character and visual amenity of the area. The proposed density is considered acceptable and would be comparable with the immediate area. There are some concerns regarding the illustrative layout, however as layout is a reserved matter, these concerns can be resolved through the detailed design stage. Development 35 of 213 on this site would provide an opportunity to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment that would bring benefits for the local community. As such, it is appropriate to secure a Landscape Management Plan for the site as part of the S106 agreement.

Given the above conclusions, it is considered that the principle of development is acceptable and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Local Plan and the NPPF.

Affordable Housing

An appropriate level of affordable housing should be provided as part of the development, with the starting point for negotiations being 40%, of which, 25% should be social rented units and 15% should be shared ownership units, as identified in Saved Policy C2 of the Local Plan and the Affordable Housing SPD.

The application proposes 67 units, and therefore an on-site provision of 27 units would be required to comply with this policy.

Housing Services have been consulted on this application and have confirmed that the housing needs in the East Woodhay Parish, within which the site is located, are as follows:

East Woodhay inc Woolton Hill

General Needs Transfers

Band 1 Band 2 Band 3 Band 4 Total Band 1 Band 2 Band 3 Band 4 Total One Bedroom Flat 3 3 One Bedroom Flat 2 2 Two Bedroom Flat 1 1 Two Bedroom Flat 0 One Bedroom Bungalow 0 One Bedroom Bungalow 0 Two Bedroom Bungalow 0 Two Bedroom Bungalow 0 Two Bedroom House 1 6 7 Two Bedroom House 1 1 Three Bedroom House 0 Three Bedroom House 0 Four Bedroom House 0 Four Bedroom House 0 Five Bedroom House 0 Five Bedroom House 0 Sheltered 0 Sheltered 0 Total 0 0 1 10 11 Total 0 0 0 3 3

Housing Services have commented as follows: “Radian Housing Association has confirmed as Homebuy Agent (coordinating shared ownership in the District) that they have 8 households identified with a need in East Woodhay. It is not clear whether the 8 potential shared owners are counted within the 11 on the register however it is possible to deduce an important but limited need within the Parish.”

There is a new supply of 6 units coming forward on the Linden Homes scheme in Woolton Hill, which is a recently completed development on 16 units to the north-west of this application site.

Given the limited need for affordable housing within the Parish, the applicants propose to reduce the on-site provision to 14 units, and to make up the balance (equivalent to 13 units) through an off-site contribution. This would mean that an affordable housing contribution of 40% of the development is made by the applicant, however this would be made up from a mix of on-site provision and an off- site financial contribution. The off-site contribution, secured via a S106 agreement, would be spent in the rural areas of the Borough, potentially covering a wider area than the East Woodhay Parish. The applicant also proposes that of the 40%, 20% would be provided as rented units, and 20% would be provided as shared ownership units.

36 of 213

The Housing Services Team comment: “On the basis of the sites isolated location in relation to the towns and service centres of the Borough the Housing Service have accepted this argument and therefore 14 units will be provided on-site and a contribution in lieu of 13 units provided as a financial contribution. Equally the 50/50 split of rent and shared ownership was accepted on the same basis.” As such, Housing Services accept the applicant’s proposals in this instance.

It is noted that Paragraph 8.1 of the Affordable Housing SPD states that “…the Council will negotiate the provision of an element of affordable housing on all housing sites above the identified threshold taking into account the specific circumstances of each site”. Paragraph 9.1 states that “The precise amount, type, size and standard of affordable housing will be subject to negotiation with the developer and will be dependent upon the housing need at the time of the planning application, based on a consideration of the Housing Register, Housing Needs and Market assessments, and Rural Housing surveys.” In relation to on or off site provision, Paragraph 13.1 of the SPD states: “The Council considers that where a requirement for affordable housing is considered appropriate, it should be provided on-site as part of the development. However, there may be exceptional circumstances that would justify a financial or other contribution towards the provision of the required element of affordable housing on another site in the Borough.”

In this case, the information available demonstrates that within the East Woodhay Parish, there is not a need for 27 units on the application site. However there is a need for affordable housing within the wider rural community. Therefore, the applicant’s proposals will meet the immediate need for affordable housing within the parish of East Woodhay, through providing 14 units on site. The wider need is met through the off-site contribution and this approach is considered acceptable in this instance and in accordance with the Affordable Housing SPD.

An off-site contribution of £310,500 would be secured via a S106 agreement. This quantum has been negotiated on the basis of a formula developed from a Viability Study undertaken for the Council by consultants Adams Integra Ltd in 2010 and most recently used on a scheme at Four Oaks, Harts Lane, Burghclere (application reference BDB/77464). Housing Services accept this approach and the contribution offered in this instance.

In summary, the application seeks to provide 40% affordable housing, made up of an on and off site contribution. This approach is considered acceptable, given the specific circumstances in this case. The contribution and on-site provision would meet the rural housing need and accordingly the proposal would comply with the requirements of Saved Policy C2 of the Local Plan and the Affordable Housing SPD.

Housing Mix

Saved Policy C3 of the Local Plan states that 30-50% of market dwellings should be of 1 or 2 bedrooms with the highest proportion being sought on sites on or adjoining the centres of settlements including Basingstoke with a good or a reasonable range of services and public transport opportunities. Paragraph 7.3 of the Housing Mix and Lifetime Homes SPD outlines the percentage threshold for smaller market dwellings depending on the specific location of the site, and therefore, with regard to development in Woolton Hill, 30-35% of market dwellings should be small units. This would equate to a minimum of 13 units on this development having 2 bedrooms or fewer. The supporting text of Saved Policy C3 goes on to state that the Council will aim to achieve a standard of

37 of 213

80% of small dwellings on any development having a gross floor area of no more than 70m².

The applicant envisages that 15% of the properties would be small units. This falls below the 30% required by Saved Policy C3 of the Local Plan and as such, the Planning Policy Team has advised that the proposal is contrary to Saved Policy C3.

Paragraph 7.3 of the Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards SPD recognises that: “there may be exceptions where a higher or lower proportion would be appropriate as a result of detailed design considerations, the physical characteristics of the site, the character of the area or local housing need and existing provision. However, the starting point will always be for a range of units and sufficient evidence will need to be provided if this is not to be followed on an individual site.”

The Planning Policy Officer is therefore right to raise an objection, since the proposal is contrary to Saved Policy C3. It is however for the case officer, and in turn the Members of the Development Control Committee, to take a balanced view on whether the proposed housing mix is, in this instance, acceptable.

The applicant cites the housing requirements evidence base as including the 2007 Central Hampshire and New Forest Strategic Housing Market Assessment, a 2010 Basingstoke and Deane Rural Housing Assessment (HMA), together with an updated draft of this document which was presented to Members of the P&I OSCOM 5 June 2013. Broadly, these documents do not define a market housing size or mix requirement, noting that housing mix is effectively market led. The HMA in particular suggests avoiding placing constraints on developers that will prevent housing delivery.

The applicant also cites the semi-rural character of the locality and the ‘village’ context within which the development is located. In particular, the applicant states that the “provision of additional smaller units could result in a higher density form of development that is unlikely to be acceptable to the Council. The location of the site and its context suggests a lower density scheme would be more appropriate. Achieving the housing mix required by saved Local Plan policy C3, as evidenced by the adjoining Linden scheme, is likely to result in a more cramped form of development.”

Paragraph 50 of the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to deliver a wide choice of homes and to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. However the NPPF does not define a percentage figure that must be met in order to achieve this. The Borough is required to plan for a mix of housing, based upon current and future demographics and market trends and should identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations to meet local demand. However at present, there is no evidence available for this specific area with regards to housing mix and whether the number of existing smaller properties is sufficient.

Of note is that East Woodhay Parish Council’s consultation response includes the results of a Parish Poll. It is noted that 72% of those that responded to the poll felt that there were currently sufficient smaller properties available to meet local needs. It is also clear from the local engagement to date that, notwithstanding the objection to the principle of this development, if a development were to go ahead, it should be a lower density form of development.

In conclusion, Paragraph 7.3 of the Housing Mix SPD and Paragraph 50 of the NPPF enable a more flexible approach to be taken with regards to housing mix, than Saved

38 of 213

Policy C3. It is considered that given the particular character of Woolton Hill and the need to ensure a high quality development that respects the immediate context, that in this case, a provision of 15% small units within the scheme would be acceptable. Whilst noting that this is not compliant with Saved Policy C3, it is considered that this balanced approach is supported under the NPPF.

The applicant has confirmed that 15% of the development will be constructed to Lifetime Mobility Standards in accordance with the policy requirements and this is accepted by the Council’s Policy Team and can be secured via a planning condition.

Impact on Amenity

The indicative masterplan demonstrates that up to 67 dwellings could be accommodated on site without causing adverse harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties by way of overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impacts. The window to window and window to boundary relationships between proposed and existing dwellings would accord with the requirements of the Residential Amenity SPD such that there would be sufficient separation between properties to ensure that privacy is retained.

It is clear that the outlook from the existing properties bounding this site would change as a result of this proposal; however there is no requirement in planning terms to maintain the status quo. In this instance, the illustrative masterplan and indicative streetscenes demonstrate that an appropriate development could be accommodated within this site, maintaining adequate separation between developments and providing a robust planting scheme. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would respect the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Local Plan.

Impact on the Natural Environment

 Archaeology

A Heritage Statement has been submitted with the application which addresses archaeological issues and the County Archaeologist concurs with these conclusions. The site appears to have a low archaeological potential and the Heritage Statement concludes that no over-riding archaeological constraint is likely to exist. The County Archaeologist comments that “Whilst it is rarely possible to be confident archaeological remains do not exist on a site in this case the potential for archaeological remains is low and does not in my opinion reasonably justify the burden of an archaeological condition”. On that basis, no archaeological issues are raised.

 Biodiversity

The application site is not located within, adjacent to or in close proximity to any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) or Ramsar Site.

European Protected Species surveys, specifically for bats, dormice and great crested newts, have been undertaken in support of this application. An Extended Phase 1 habitat survey of the site has been undertaken. The results of the surveys identified an area of marshy grassland within the north east corner of the site and identified the trees along Tile Barn Row as being important for bat activity. If outline approval is granted, it will be

39 of 213 necessary that the detailed layout retains the area of marshy grassland, which is currently shown to be retained on the illustrative masterplan

Bats are known to use parts of the site and in particular the line of trees along Tile Barn Row. It will be important therefore to ensure enough of a buffer is left between the development and these trees to allow bats to continue to use this linear feature. However no potential roosts are planned to be removed and an adequate buffer zone can be secured at the detailed design stage.

Toads were recorded on site but the submitted survey fails to mention this species despite the species being a Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act Section 41 protected species. However, the Council’s Biodiversity Officer has recommended a condition to include a habitat enhancement scheme which will include the recommendations given in the submitted report (i.e. enhancing the attenuation features by way of creating ponds) should enhance the area for this species.

In summary, Natural England does not object to the proposed development and the Council’s Biodiversity Officer concludes that the proposal is unlikely to affect a protected species.

This application provides opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. In accordance with Paragraph 118 of the NPPF, such biodiversity enhancements can be secured via planning condition requiring a habitat enhancement scheme.

In summary, the proposed development is considered to comply with the provisions of Section 11 of the NPPF in that it will promote the conservation of biodiversity and lead to an enhancement of the local area through the use of planning conditions.

 Trees

The principal trees are located along Tile Barn Road and the south east boundary with Longmead/Greenlands. Tree Preservation Order BDB99A applies to trees T34, T35, T36, T38 to T45 (shown on the submitted tree survey) together with the holly and sycamore within G47 on the Tile Barn Road boundary. Tree Preservation Order BDB63 applies to several beech and sycamore trees on the rear boundaries of 10 to 13 Longmead, T18 to T26 on the tree survey and group G2 of the TPO. There are also some further protected trees around the boundaries of 14 and 15 Longmead, T27 to G31 on the tree survey and group G4 of the TPO. The remaining trees in the tree survey are not protected. There are no trees of any significance within the main body of the site.

The Council’s Tree Officer advises that development on this site is feasible in arboricultural terms and the illustrative layout indicates that development can be accommodated outside the Root Protection Areas (RPA) of the boundary trees.

At detailed design stage, careful consideration will need to be given to the relationship of a proposed building and retained tree, taking into account the size and orientation of the tree, the proposed use of the building, levels etc. Consideration will also need to be given to shading of gardens in the afternoon/evening. It is noted that the illustrative layout does shown that some units would be in close proximity to existing protected trees, and therefore may need to be realigned. However this is a matter to be addressed at detailed stage. 40 of 213

It is proposed to take the access onto Tile Barn Road through an existing natural gap which will help mitigate any impact on the adjacent trees. Therefore, the Tree Office raises no objection to the outline application, recognising that opportunity will be present at the detailed phase to agree an acceptable layout and landscape planting scheme to enhance the character of the site. The proposal therefore accords with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Local Plan.

 Land Contamination

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection to the application, noting that the risk from contamination to future site users has been adequately assessed through the applicant’s submitted reports. However as additional subsoil/topsoil may need to be imported onto the site at some stage to form soft landscaping areas, a condition is recommended to ensure that this material is subject to chemical testing before it is brought to site and once in-situ to ensure that it is suitable for use.

Flood Risk and Drainage

The proposed development is located in Flood Zone 1 (low probability) based on the Environment Agency’s Flood Zone map. Paragraph 103 of the NPPF requires that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) should be submitted for all developments over one hectare in size. An FRA has therefore been submitted in support of this application.

Given the size of the development, the Environment Agency do not provide a specific comment on the application, and instead refer the Authority to their Standing Advice in respect of Surface Water Flooding, which states that surface water runoff should not increase flood risk to the development or third parties and encourages the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to attenuate to at least pre-development runoff rates and volumes or where possible achieving betterment in the surface water runoff regime. In addition, an allowance for climate change needs to be incorporated, which means adding an extra amount to peak rainfall (30% for residential) and the residual risk of flooding needs to be addressed should any drainage features fail or if they are subjected to an extreme flood event.

The applicant has submitted a FRA which concludes that the proposed development would not increase flood risk elsewhere. In addition, the application proposes the use of attenuation ponds to provide SuDS to serve the development. Features such as permeable surfacing can also be secured at detailed design stage to minimise and control surface water run off.

In respect of drainage, the submitted drainage assessment concludes that the proposed on site drainage system would be suitable to attenuate water flows to the 1 in a 100 year flooding event and includes the additional 30% rainfall storage as required by the Environment Agency. As such, the applicant has demonstrated that surface water drainage can be managed as part of the development without adverse impact.

In conclusion, Officers consider that the proposal would avoid the risk of flooding and would incorporate adequate drainage systems to avoid surface water flooding. The development would therefore accord with the NPPF in this regard.

41 of 213

Code for Sustainable Homes

Planning has a key role to play in shaping places, providing resilience to the impacts of climate change and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon technology to promote sustainable development. Appendix 5 of the Design and Sustainability SPD is a material planning consideration and supplements the requirements under Saved Policy E1 of the Local Plan. This requires residential developments to achieve at least a Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes in terms of design construction, energy and water efficiency.

The applicant has provided no indication that the development would achieve a Code Level 3, however given this is an outline proposal; this is a matter that can be secured by condition and controlled at reserved matters stage.

The applicant has however indicated within the Sustainability Statement that the dwellings will be constructed using a “fabric first” approach that will deliver a long term reduction in energy costs for the future occupants. Fabric first means that the dwellings would be designed to be well-insulated, energy efficient buildings in accordance with the 2006 Zero Carbon Homes Policy, and in accordance with Part L of the 2010 Building Regulations. It is therefore likely that Code Level 3 could be achieved for this development.

In summary, the applicant proposes an energy efficient development that would accord with national planning objectives, however a planning condition is recommended to ensure the proposal meets the minimum Code Level 3 rating, which will be assessed at the design stage and post construction. As such it is considered that the proposal will accord with the NPPF, Saved Policy E1 of the Local Plan and Appendix 5 'Design and Construction' of the Council's Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document.

Local Infrastructure and Community Facilities

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations enable Local Authorities to raise funds from developments to provide, maintain and enhance community infrastructure within the vicinity of a development. Whilst Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council has not yet developed a levy, contributions may still be secured via S106. Any contribution sought must comply with the tests set out in the CIL regulations which are:

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

Saved Policy C1 of the Local Plan and the S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure SPG set out the Council’s approach to the provision of infrastructure and community facilities needed as a result of development.

The various on-site facilities and off-site contributions negotiated by Officers are set out on the scoping Proforma and Officers are satisfied that these contributions meet the tests of the CIL Regulations. In summary, the following contributions would be sought:

 Art

Given the scale of the scheme, there is potential to include artwork on site as part of the development. The Council will liaise with the developer to secure appropriate provision.

42 of 213

 BEST

As set out above, a contribution would be secured to provide local transport improvements within the vicinity of the site to promote travel by sustainable modes and improvements to mitigate against the cumulative impact of this development in accordance with HCC Transport Contributions Policy guidelines.

 Community Facilities

Additional residents would place increased pressure on existing community facilities and therefore a contribution would be secured towards improving existing community facilities at Woolton Hill Church Hall.

 Education

This development is within the catchment areas of St Thomas Infant and Woolton Hill Junior schools and The Clere Secondary School. The Infant and Junior Schools are full, whereas there are spaces at The Clere School.

The proposed development would necessitate an education contribution, in line with the County Council’s Policy - Developers’ Contributions towards Children’s Services Facilities December 2011 towards enhancing existing education facilities at these schools.

 Playing fields

A contribution towards improving recreation provision at either the Heath End Recreation Ground, Woolton Hill Tennis Courts or other recreation provision within the locality of the development would be sought to off-set the impact placed on these facilities by additional residents accommodated through this development.

 Play areas

A contribution towards an enhancement of the Local Equipped Area of Play at the Church Lane playground will be secured to off-set the impact of additional residents using this facility.

 Allotments

Allotment provision in this area is managed by East Woodhay Parish Council. A contribution towards improvement to or provision of allotments within the Parish is considered necessary to off-set the additional demand for such facilities arising from this development.

The developer has confirmed agreement to the level of contributions being sought, and these will be secured via the S106 agreement, which is in the process of being drafted. The S106 will also secure the affordable housing, landscape management, and on site open space provision. Subject to completion of the S106, the proposed development would accord with adopted policies and guidance, subject to the completion of the S106 agreement.

43 of 213

Consultation Comments

The concerns of local objectors to this application are noted, and have been taken into account in determining this application. The majority of the objections raised are dealt with in the report above. Some comments, such as impact on existing property values, and the littering of contractors connected with the Linden Homes development, are not material planning considerations.

Whilst the construction of this development would inevitably cause some disruption to local residents, planning conditions can be used to control the hours of work and deliveries to keep the interruption to a minimum.

Conclusion

It is noted that concern has been raised that there is not a need for the proposed development within Woolton Hill. There is no requirement within the NPPF to consider whether any one given village, parish or town has a need for proposed housing, since the test of need relates to the administrative area of the Borough as a whole. In this instance, the Borough cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land and therefore the current Local Plan policies in relation to housing development are not considered to be up-to-date. Whilst the Council has prepared emerging planning policies to guide future housing developments, material weight cannot be attached to this draft document given its early stage of preparation.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development is therefore applied which means that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, or where specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.

Given the current shortfall in deliverable housing sites, a 5 year land supply position cannot be demonstrated; the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out within the NPPF is therefore applied. The site is within the AONB and the scale of the proposed development would constitute major development and therefore the NPPF indicates that development can be restricted, in this case, it is considered that there is a demonstrable need for this development to support the Boroughs Housing need. Whilst the development would have an impact on the AONB, this impact would be localised and adverse harm can be avoided through a well designed scheme that can be secured at reserved matters stage. This application demonstrates that a sensitive development could be accommodated on this site without adverse harm, and therefore the tests of Paragraph 116 of the NPPF are considered to be met.

This site will deliver housing development to contribute towards an existing shortfall and this would constitute a clear benefit of the scheme. In addition, the provision of additional housing development within Woolton Hill will assist in supporting and sustaining the existing community services such as the local shop, schools and health care facilities which would be of wider benefit to the community as a whole.

Whilst it is acknowledged that there will be impacts of permitting this development, for the reasoning set out within this report it is considered that the impacts would not be so significant so as to outweigh the benefits, and therefore, on balance, it would be appropriate to support the principle of permitting development on this site in advance of the adoption of the emerging Local Plan, in accordance with the NPPF.

44 of 213

Conditions

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

Drawing no. 1000 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. SK-001A received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. EDP1923/02 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. EDP1923/03 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. EDP1923/19 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. EDP1923/22 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. 14363-05 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. 14363-06 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. SK-005A received 14 August 2013 GRM Development Solutions Site Appraisal Report, dated April 2013 GRM Development Solutions Gas Monitoring Letter Report, dated June 2013

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

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

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

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

5 Applications for the approval of reserved matters shall be in accordance with the principles described and illustrated in the "Design and Access Statement" dated June 2013 and the Illustrative Masterplan (Drawing no. SK-001A dated May 2013)) with regard to the general areas of development, including approximate floor areas and storey heights. REASON: To ensure an appropriate co-ordinated high quality form of development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

45 of 213

writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To comply with Saved Policy C3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan and the Council's adopted Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards Supplementary Planning Guidance.

7 No works shall take place on site until a measured survey of the site has been undertaken and a plan prepared to a scale of not less than 1:500 showing details of existing and intended final ground levels and finished floor levels in relation to a nearby datum point which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To preserve the landscape character and visual amenity of the area and to protect the privacy of the occupiers of adjoining properties in accordance Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

8 No development shall commence on site until a material schedule detailing the types and colours of external materials to be used, including colour of mortar, together with samples, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011.

9 No development shall commence until full details of both hard and soft landscape proposals have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Soft landscape details shall include a planting plan, specification (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment), and schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate. In addition, an implementation timetable shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. If applicable, these details will also extend to cover areas of open space to be adopted by the Council; such areas shall be agreed in writing prior to development commencing. All hard and soft landscape works relevant to the phase of development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in accordance with the timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years after planting, are removed die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of species, size and number as originally approved, to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs and in accordance with Saved Policies E1(ii) and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

46 of 213

timetable and shall subsequently be maintained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011

11 An Arboricultural Implication Assessment together with an Arboricultural Method Statement shall be submitted as part of any future application for full planning permission or reserved matters on this site. REASON: To ensure that full consideration is given to all tree issues as an integral part of the planning application for the benefit of the local amenities and the enhancement of the development itself, in accordance with Saved Policies E1(ii) and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

12 Prior to the first occupation, a 'Code for Sustainable Homes', 'Design Stage Assessment' of the residential development, hereby approved, must be carried out by an independent licensed Code for Sustainable Homes assessor, and the results of the assessment incorporating the 'Design Stage Assessment' report and 'interim certificate' from the BRE, must submitted to the Local Planning Authority in writing.

The BRE Design Stage Assessment 'interim certification' must show that the residential development is likely to achieve a 'Code Level 3 standards' or 'Code Level 3 equivalent percentage points score' for the development in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

Prior to occupation of each dwelling a 'Code for Sustainable Homes' 'Post Construction Stage Review' is to be completed by an independent licensed Code for Sustainable Homes assessor demonstrating that the dwelling is expected to achieve 'Code 3 standards' or 'Code Level 3 equivalent percentage points score' and the results of the review must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority in writing'.

'Final Certification' from BRE or equivalent body, for each dwelling, must be submitted to the Local planning Authority within 3 months of post completion of the development phase.

The 'Final Certification' must show that the residential dwelling has been constructed and completed to achieve a 'Code 3 standard' or 'Code Level 3 equivalent percentage points score', unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

REASON: In the interests of sustainable development and to ensure that the development is constructed to the required environmental standard, in the context of Saved Policy E1 v) of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011 and Appendix 5 'Construction Statements' of the 'Design and Sustainability' Supplementary Planning Document.

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

47 of 213

(a) details of how mature trees adjacent to the area of the proposed development will be protected during the construction works.

(b) details of the timing/ecological watching brief/felling procedures required to address the protection of breeding birds, reptiles, badgers and bats before and during any development works. A method statement to reduce the chance of disturbing any potential bat roosts if any trees are likely to be impacted by the proposed development should also be included.

(c) details of mitigation proposals for mitigating any potential adverse effects on bats or birds and any features that they are dependent on. This is to include the results of the additional dusk activity surveys and measures that will be taken to avoid light spillage along the known bat commuter routes and measures to ensure enough buffer width is retained along the known bat commuter routes.

(d) provisions for the supervision and monitoring of the plan, including briefing construction personnel, and the name and contact details of the person responsible for this;

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

No habitat or other landscape features that are to be retained as part of the approved Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan shall be damaged or destroyed, or removed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority, before practical completion of the development.

If a habitat or other landscape feature is removed or damaged in contravention of this condition, a scheme of remedial action, with a timetable for implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 28 days of the incident. The scheme of remedial action must be approved by the Local Planning Authority before practical completion of the development and implemented in accordance with the approved timetable.

REASON: To minimise the impact on the existing biodiversity of the site and its surroundings, in accordance with Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan.

14 No development shall take place until full details of a habitat enhancement and management scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The details shall include:  Purpose, aims and objectives for the scheme, taking into account the site's existing biodiversity, results of species surveys and loss of habitats resulting from the development;  A full specification and method statement for implementation of the enhancement / habitat creation proposals  Sources of habitat materials (e.g. planting stock and its origin);  Aftercare and long term management; 48 of 213

 Timing of the works and timetable for implementation;  Monitoring.

REASON: To help compensate for habitat loss resulting from the development and help to maintain the biodiversity of the area in the long term, in accordance with Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. The site also lies within East Woodhay to Headley Biodiversity Opportunity Area (BOA).

15 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 and turning of vehicles of site operatives and visitors (all to be established within one week of the commencement of development); ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv. wheel washing facilities or an explanation why they are not necessary; v. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; vi. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; vii. a scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and viii. the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway, particularly during the Monday to Friday AM peak (08.00 to 09.00) and PM peak (16.30 to 18.00) periods. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

16 No development shall take place on site until details of the method of construction of the means of accesses to Cutters Hill Road and Tile Barn Row, including their layout, construction, sight lines and drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved access details shall be constructed and fully implemented before the commencement of building and other operations on the site and shall be thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that satisfactory means of access to the highway are constructed before the approved buildings in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

17 No development shall be commenced on-site until an Agreement has been entered into pursuant to Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 or similar with the Local Highway Authority (Hampshire County Council) to enable alterations to the publicly maintained highway to create safe means of access and egress of the site, including a new road junction and footways on Cutters Hill Road and Tile Barn Row. The details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority. The new access and egress details shall be implemented in 49 of 213

accordance with a programme agreed by the Local Highway Authority and shall be fully realised before the development hereby permitted is first occupied. REASON: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

18 If any material is imported onto the site to form soft landscaping areas this material should be subject to chemical testing before it is brought to site and once in-situ to ensure that it is suitable for use. REASON: To ensure any material imported onto the site is chemically tested to protect the occupiers of the application site and/or adjacent land and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011.

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

20 No deliveries of construction materials or plant and machinery and no removal of any spoil from the site shall take place before the hours of 08:00 nor after 18:00 Monday to Friday; before the hours of 08:00 nor after 13:00 Saturdays; nor at any time on Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

Informative(s):-

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

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

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

50 of 213

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

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

offering a pre-application advice; seeking further information following receipt of the application; seeking additional information to assess the impact of the proposed development following receipt of the application; considering the imposition of conditions and or the completion of a s.106 legal agreement.

In this instance:

the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, and was provided with pre-application advice.

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

3. Arboricultural Implications Assessment (AIA);

This is a study undertaken by an arboriculturalist to identify, evaluate and possibly mitigate the extent of direct and indirect impacts on existing trees (both on and immediately adjacent to the site) that may arise as a result of the implementation of any proposed site layout. It would need to include a tree survey with identified Root Protection Areas. This information is important for the development of a Construction Exclusion Zone and a Tree Constraints Plan.

Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS); The Arboricultural Method Statement is a document that provides details for all works affecting trees to include a Tree Protection Plan containing the following information:

a) trees selected for retention clearly identified (e.g. by number) and marked on a plan with a continuous outline; b) trees to be removed, also clearly identified (e.g. by number) and marked on a plan with a dashed line; c) the precise location for the erection of protective barriers and any other relevant physical protection measures including ground protection to protect the Root Protection Areas and marked as a construction exclusion zone on the plan. d) design details of the proposed physical means of protection, indicated through drawings and/or descriptive text, including any development facilitation pruning; e) areas of structural landscaping (including tree planting) to be protected from construction operations (to prevent the soil structure being damaged). All the details in a-e above shall be incorporated into subsequent drawings and method statements used for design purposes or issued on site to ensure that all interested parties are fully aware of the areas in which access and works may not take place.

51 of 213

The Arboricultural Method Statement should set out the proposals for avoiding disturbance to the physical protection forming the construction exclusion zone once it is installed. Consideration, allowances and planning for all construction operations that will be undertaken in the vicinity of trees will need to include:

a) site construction access b) the intensity and nature of the construction activity c) contractor's car parking d) phasing of construction works e) the space needed for all foundation excavation and construction works f) the availability of special construction techniques g) the location and space needed for all service runs including foul and surface water drains, land drains, soakaways, gas, oil, water, electricity, telephone, television or other communication cables; h) all changes in ground levels, including the location of retaining walls, steps and making adequate allowance for foundations of such walls and back fillings i) space for cranes, plant, scaffolding and access during works; j) space for site huts, temporary latrines (including their drainage) and other temporary structures; k) the type and extent of landscape works that will be required within the protected areas and the effect these will have on the root system l) space for storing (whether temporary or long-term) materials, spoil and fuel and the mixing of concrete. m) the effects of slope on the movement of potentially harmful liquid spillages towards or into protected areas.

The applicant's attention is drawn to British Standard BS 5837 'Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction' 2012. Further helpful advice is contained in the council's adopted Landscape and Biodiversity SPD.

4. The Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan and the Habitat Enhancement/Management Plan should include all the wildlife protection, mitigation and enhancement measures given in the Section 4 of the Ecological Appraisal Report and should include a management plan for the areas of accessible natural green space which should cover a time period of at least ten years.

5. Consent under the Town and Country Planning Acts must not be taken as approval for any works carried out on any footway, including a Public Right of Way, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the publicly maintained highway. The development could involve works within the public highway. It is an offence to commence those works without the permission of the Highway Authority, Hampshire County Council. In the interests of highway safety the development should not commence on-site until permission has been obtained from the Highway Authority authorising any necessary works within the publicly maintained highway. Public Utility apparatus may also be affected by the development. Contact the appropriate public utility service to ensure agreement on any necessary alterations. Advice on this matter can be obtained from Hampshire County Council's Area Office, telephone 0845 8504422.

52 of 213

Major Application

Cttee: 02/10/13 Item No. 2

Application no: 13/00898/OUT For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Harwood Paddock Woolton Hill Newbury Hampshire Proposal Outline application for up to 49 residential dwellings to include access and the transfer of 0.243 hectares/0.6 acres of land for community use D1/D2

Parish: EAST WOODHAY OS Grid Reference: 443425 162227 CP

Recommendation: It is RECOMMENDED that subject to no new material objections being made as a result of the Departure notification (expiring 11 October 2013), the applicant be invited to enter into a legal agreement (in accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and Saved Policies C1, C7, C9 and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011) between the applicant and the Borough and County Councils to secure contributions towards local infrastructure improvements towards:  Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport  Education  Affordable housing  Off site enhancement of Playing Fields  Provision of or contribution towards a local area of equipped play (LEAP)  Off site enhancement of community facilities  On site provision of a kickabouts and areas of accessible natural green space  On site provision of Percent for Art  Provision of allotments within the Parish of East Woodhay  A Landscape Management Plan  The transfer of 0.443ha/0.6acres of land for community use

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

On completion of the legal agreement the Planning and Development Manager be delegated to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed at the end of this report. 53 of 213

Reasons for Approval

General comments

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

Additional information has been received in support of this planning application and consequently further consultation was undertaken for 14 days, commencing 2 September 2013.

54 of 213

Planning Policy

The site is located within the countryside and lies outside, but immediately adjacent to the Settlement Policy Boundary of Woolton Hill.

The site lies within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and there are a number of trees along the northern boundary covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

The proposed development is located in Flood Zone 1 (low probability) and the application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) given that the development site is greater than 1ha in size.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (Saved Policies)

Location of Development Policies: D5 (Residential and other Development within Settlements) and D6 (New Residential Accommodation in the Countryside)

55 of 213

Environment Policies: E1 (Development Control); E6 (Landscape Character) and E7 (Nature/Biodiversity Conservation)

Social/Community Policies: C1 (S106 Contributions); C2 (Affordable Housing); C3 (Housing Mix); and C9 (New Leisure Facilities or Open Spaces)

Emerging Local Plan

“From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

It should be noted that the application site is listed as a Category 2 site in Version 7 of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2013, (reference WHILL002). The SHLAA states that “the site it is not considered to be suitable for strategic allocation, however it may have potential to come forward through alternative mechanisms such as neighbourhood planning if the development was of an appropriate scale and if any physical constraints could be overcome”. As such, the site has not been put forward by the Council in the emerging Local Plan as a housing allocation site; however this does not preclude the site from development through other mechanisms.

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

56 of 213

Basingstoke Landscape Character Assessment SPG Trees and Development SPG

Other material documents

Description of Site

Proposal

This is an outline application for the erection of up to 49 dwellings and the transfer of 0.243ha/0.6acres of land for community D1 and/or D2 use. Alongside the principle of

57 of 213 development, means of access is the only matter for consideration. All other matters, including the layout and appearance of the development are reserved.

Assuming a maximum of 49 dwellings, this application proposes:

 a density of 22 dwellings per hectare;  a housing mix comprising 2 no. 2 bed units; 3 no. 3 bed units; 23 no. 4 bed units and 14 no. 5 bed units;  40% affordable housing, comprising 7 units on site (4 no. 2 bed units and 3 no. 3 bed units) with the balance (equating to 12.6 units) taken as an off-site contribution;  0.618ha of on-site multi-purpose public/community open space, including a toddler play space and accessible natural greenspace;  A package of S106 contributions to enhance existing community facilities and undertake improvements to the existing highway infrastructure in the vicinity of the site; and  On site Sustainable Urban Drainage attenuation ponds.

This application also proposes the transfer of 0.243ha / 0.6 acres of land to the community to provide a multi-purpose community use (falling within the D1 and/or D2 Use Class). The transfer is proposed to be secured to the Parish Council via a legal agreement and the ultimate use of the land would be for the local community to determine, in conjunction with the Borough Council, through a Reserved Matters application. This application indicates that the proposed space would be sufficient to accommodate a building of up to 500sqm with scope for up to 24 parking spaces.

Consultations

East Woodhay Parish Council: Objection:

“Summary:

East Woodhay Parish Council (EWPC) has considered the above Outline Planning Application and concludes that it must object to this development proposal on the grounds that it is an opportunistic exploitation of the Borough’s short term lack of a 5 year land supply, providing housing that is not required, in a location that is unsustainable, and before the community has completed its own Neighbourhood Plan to identify any future housing need. Specifically the proposal demonstrates:-

 no demonstrable need for additional local housing under the draft Local Plan.

2. Conflict with Local Plan Saved Policies A2, C1, D5, E1 & E6  falls outside the Saved Policy Settlement Policy Boundary for Woolton Hill  proposed scope and style inflicts a greater than acceptable impact on this rural community  already stretched health, education and infrastructure services inadequately addressed  cannot be adequately served by public transport in this rural environment  will lead to dangerous traffic pressure on C road choke points during school drop off / commuter periods and further pressure on the primary access junction of C5 / A343.

 making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages;  moving from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains for nature;  replacing poor design with better design;

59 of 213

 improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure; and  widening the choice of high quality homes.”

EWPC sees no evidence in the application that any positive improvement is to be made to the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, or to people’s quality of life. Furthermore there is a strong potential both for negative impact on local bio-diversity and for worsening existing conditions for local people of Woolton Hill in aspects of work or leisure pursuits, as significant additional burden will be placed on the already inadequate community infrastructure of the village.

EWPC therefore considers that the proposal fails to constitute sustainable development in an already heavily developed village

EWPC considers that this development is not to be located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised and should therefore be rejected.

1.4 NPPF Paragraph 35: states, inter alia, “Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people.

60 of 213

The submitted Transport Assessment Report ( David Tucker Associates) focusses largely on impacts to the immediate neighbourhood of Tile Barn Row, with some reference to historical accident rates at the Andover Road junction with the C5 access to Woolton Hill, but significantly makes no significant assessment of the inevitable impact imposed by the occupants of an additional 49 dwellings on the already heavily over congested road (C5) outside St Thomas Infant School and Woolton Hill Junior School especially during the critical morning period of school drop off and commuter access to Newbury, Basingstoke and Andover. Vehicles, including large delivery vehicles, are often seen to be mounting the pedestrian pavement to enable traffic passage at a time of peak pavement use by young children and parents. Similarly the increased traffic at the already peak congested and uncontrolled C5/A343 junction will pose significant additional threat to parents with children attempting to cross from the Penwood Hills direction.

1.5 NPPF Paragraph 55: states “To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities”

There is no supportive evidence to demonstrate the local need for or benefit from such a development; indeed evidence suggests that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the local community.

EWPC considers that the application fails to meet the criteria of NPPF Para 55 and should consequently be rejected.

61 of 213 approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should:-  give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools and  work with schools promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted.”

EWPC considers that the application fails to meet the criteria of NPPF Para 72 and should consequently be rejected

EWPC considers that the application does not give the required weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty so as to meet the criteria of NPPF Para 115

EWPC considers that the application does not describe sufficient corrective measures to satisfy the requirements of Para 176 and should be rejected.

2. Conflict with Local Plan Saved Policies A2, C1, D5, E1 & E6

2.1 Saved Policy A2: states “The Borough Council will only grant planning permission for developments with vehicular and pedestrian generation implications where:

1. cycling and walking infrastructure are integrated with the development and linked with surrounding networks; and 2. development takes account of the needs of public transport.

62 of 213 local transport improvements will be sought in conjunction with new development where appropriate.

63 of 213 new housing, is easily accessible to employment, education, retail, community and other facilities by a choice of attractive means of transport other than the private car…”

EWPC does not consider that the proposal satisfies the above criteria of the Saved Policy.

It further states that “In particular they should respect, and improve …. “visual amenity and scenic quality; …the setting of a settlement, including important views to, across and out of settlements; and the local character of buildings and settlements, including important open areas….”

EWPC does not consider that the proposal satisfies the above criteria of the Saved Policy.

3. Conflict with B&DBC Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (January 2013)

64 of 213

“imperative” development in East Woodhay on its own recommendation of a 945 dwellings per annum future need – a 26% surfeit.

3.3 The Officers’ latest recommended land portfolio was approved by Full Borough Council on 25th July 2013. East Woodhay Parish, and specifically Woolton Hill, are not included as areas scheduled for necessary development to meet the designated target of an additional 748 dwellings per annum in the borough. With the development and anticipated approval of a Local Plan work has now commenced for the creation of a Neighbourhood Plan to be commensurate with the outline planning framework for the Borough. It therefore follows that there is no current Neighbourhood Plan available against which to judge the possible extension to beyond existing Settlement Policy Boundaries for the Parish

4. Premature submission in context of B&DBC Local Plan revision 2013

65 of 213

EWPC considers this application to be premature and disproportionate to local need.

Draft Policy CN6 states: “Development proposals will be permitted where they provide or improve essential services, and sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of communities.”

EWPC considers the application fails to demonstrate or provide for a sustainable impact on local services.

EWPC considers the application fails to demonstrate improved accessibility and will indeed be detrimental to already challenged highway systems

EWPC considers the application fails to demonstrate appropriate sympathy with the character and quality of the local area.

5. Impact on Local Community services, amenities and infrastructure

66 of 213

EWPC considers the application wholly disproportionate to need and likely to adversely affect services, amenities and infrastructure.

 the outcome of a public meeting arranged on behalf of the developer (Catesby Kler Land PPL)  briefings, presentations and communications in support of the application from Catesby Kler Land PPL by Turley Associates, Pioneer Property Services, and Curtin & Co  the national census data for the ward of East Woodhay for 2001 and 2011  the National Planning Policy Framework 2012  the saved policies of the Adopted Local Plan for (1996-2011) for Basingstoke & Deane Borough  the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2008 on Design and Sustainability (special reference: Appendix 7 Places to Live)  the East Woodhay Parish Plan 2007  89% of responding parishioners to a Parish Forum Poll have responded against the granting of permission for the application.”

Comments received 11 September 2013: “The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has reviewed the further documents and see no reason to change the views previously expressed.”

Planning Policy and Implementation Team: Comments:

“Given the current 5 year land supply position, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF applies. However, the significance of the AONB and the weight given to its conservation needs to be taken into account (NPPF Chapter 11) along with the proposal being contrary to Saved Policies C2, C3 and D8 and the need to balance the adverse impacts against the benefits the development would bring.”

Housing Services: No objection.

Local Highway Authority: No objection subject to conditions.

Landscape Officer: No objection subject to conditions.

Urban Design Officer: No objection subject to conditions.

Open Spaces Officer: No objection in principle subject to provision of open space, including a kickabout, in accordance with adopted policy at reserved matters stage.

Community Facilities Officer: No objection.

Biodiversity Officer: No objection subject to conditions and an informative.

Tree Officer: No objection subject to conditions.

Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions.

Drainage Officer: No comment.

Hampshire County Highway Team: No objection subject to provision of S106 contribution to secure off-site highway improvements.

Hampshire County Education Authority: No specific comments received, however comments made within the Scoping Proforma 68 of 213

Hampshire County Archaeologist: No objection.

Hampshire Constabulary: No objection, however wish to reserve the right to comment upon any reserved matters application.

North Wessex Downs AONB Unit: Objection:

In this case there is no need to consider this site for housing, as adequate provision for housing is being made through the Local Plan process.

Basingstoke and Deane is a District where AONB avoidance is an option and where the majority of its settlements and likely housing sites lie outside this nationally protected landscape.

69 of 213 obligations without having to consider sites in settlements of this size within the nationally protected AONB.”

Natural England: No objection.

Environment Agency: No objection: Comments refer the LPA to the Standing Advice produced by the Agency on minimising flood risk.

Thames Water: Supplementary Comments:

Public Observations

Forty three letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:

70 of 213

 Development in Newbury will place increased pressure on existing infrastructure in the village.  Permission refused on this site 10 years ago, nothing has changed.  Contrary to NPPF as development would result in adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  Contrary to saved policies of existing Local Plan.  Development is contrary to the draft policies of the emerging Local Plan.  If a development of this size can skirt around the Local Plan, why bother with one at all?  Site is within the AONB - surely we should be protecting these areas.  Area makes a valuable contribution to the local landscape.  Field provides a vital green lung.  Destroy the AONB and the identity of the village.  Proposal would turn this village into suburbia.  Scale of development is inappropriate.  The density of the Linden Homes site is higher than that of the village as a whole and was only achieved on appeal.  There is no going back once a development is built.  Linden Homes development is an eyesore.  Site contributes to the character of the village.  Character of village would be changed by development.  Destroy uniqueness of area.  Development is characteristic of a suburban environment.  Development will look very similar to Royal Chase, which is regarded as a blot on the landscape.  Completely out of character with the village.  Detrimental to the village.  Not a high quality residential environment.  Over dense, insufficient room for pavements and landscaping.  Cramped development.  Development of 2.5 storey homes and townhouses will be out of character with the village.  Large dwellings with disproportionately small gardens.  Roads put under additional pressure.  Speeding is a problem in the village.  Penwood crossroads will not cope with more users.  Road outside school is congested already.  Traffic assessment is incorrect and underestimates the impact of this development on existing roads.  Tile Barn Row is not a well-maintained road.  No parking figures given for the 67 house development.  Houses should have at least 3 parking spaces excluding garages.  Traffic generated by construction traffic will be too great for Tile Barn Row, which is a small country lane.  Increase in traffic would affect the day to day working of the Gainsborough Stud.  Scale of development will affect highway safety for both vehicles and pedestrians.  Tile Barn Row should be widened, have a footpath installed and be lit, to avoid accidents arising from existing speeding and increased traffic from this development.  Traffic assessments grossly underestimate the additional car journeys arising from this development. 71 of 213

 Do not require road improvements if no increase in housing.  Proposed access to site is too close to existing Broadlayings junction.  One access to this site seems poorly thought through.  Local roads will become rat runs  No need for affordable homes in the village.  Already have enough social housing.  No need for small properties.  Young people moving in to social houses will need a car as no public transport.  No local employment.  Is 40% affordable housing really right for Woolton Hill?  Local infrastructure cannot cope with development.  Local schools cannot take more pupils.  Water system cannot cope.  Putting additional pressure on the water system could be an eco-disaster.  Need to robustly assess any drainage strategy.  Flooding issues in village.  Paddock is constantly flooded.  Nothing is being done to prevent flooding in the village – drains are blocked and are not being cleared.  Why is this village even considered for development given current infrastructure issues?  Local doctors surgery cannot cope with new residents.  Already difficult to get an appointment with a doctor given recent influx of new residents.  Surgery has little parking currently.  Woolton Hill is known for power outages.  Additional housing will exacerbate these issues.  Impact on quality of education environment if schools are extended and children placed in temporary classrooms.  Infant School cannot educate all children in its catchment and has insufficient space to expand.  If schools cannot expand to take more children, where will the children go to school?  Overlooking.  Overshadowing.  Loss of privacy.  Noise and disturbance for existing residents.  Moved to village due to the peace and quiet.  Loss of view.  Residents have endured months of building works from Royal Chase development and have endured enough.  Current amenities match the number of residents and achieves a balance between rural beauty and amenities.  Additional residents would stretch these resources.  Loss of green space.  Existing green space should be preserved.  Loss of trees.  Many trees on site are protected and will be impacted upon by this development.  Insufficient attention paid to improving the environment.  Little green space within the development.  Better if a significant part of the site was not subject to development. 72 of 213

 Allocated community land could be seen as a benefit, but would not be sufficient to mitigate the impacts of this development.  A community hall located at this new site would reduce the revenue for the church, which is currently the centre of the village.  Revenue is important to the church as used for upkeep and repairs.  The transfer of land would not prevent overcrowding in the existing schools.  Additional 49 homes would be completely out of scale in a semi-rural area with limited facilities.  Misleading to suggest that there is deport for this scheme, as if asked whether you would prefer 49 homes or 70 homes to be built in your area you would say 49, but this does not mean that you support the development.  This scheme is more acceptable in that the overall density is lower.  The scheme has taken account the results of consultation.  Impact on wildlife.  Loss of habitat.  Wildlife survey unrepresentative due to reports of load explosions on the field.  Rumour has it that bird scarers being used.  Net loss of biodiversity.  S106 payments should have no bearing whatsoever on the decision to grant an application.  Evidence that S106 monies from Harwood Court spent elsewhere in the county and not a single penny went to the Parish.  Demonstrated that these payments do not come back to the local area to compensate for the impact on infrastructure and the loss of amenity.  No definitive plan as to how money will be spent so no reassurance that adverse impacts will be satisfactorily overcome.  Statement of community involvement does not accurately reflect strong objections to the proposals.  Statements are misleading and many statements disputed.  Factual errors in documentation.  Standard boilerplate without understanding the particular context of this site.  Street lighting will ruin night skies.  A travesty.  Loss of value.  Damage to property caused by other building works in the area – who compensates for this?  Who will buy these homes when not all the new homes at Harwood Court have been sold?  Land should be used for the community e.g. a small shopping centre, hairdresser, pharmacy, greengrocer, village hall etc.  Litter left by construction works is disgusting.  Development is not wanted by local residents and not needed in this area.

Two letters of support have been received raising the following comments:

 A welcome development of much needed housing on a presently barren site.  Proposals address the need for further accommodation in Woolton Hill.  Area of land is in need of development.  Born and raised in Woolton Hill and would like to move back to raise a family.  There is a lack of affordable housing in the village, so cannot afford to move back.  Village needs more housing so people can move back and give to the community. 73 of 213

 Appreciate Woolton Hill is a pretty village, and a desirable place to live, however everyone should have the same change to choose to move to a village like this, to raise a family and contribute to village life.  If more affordable housing is not available, how can local schools continue?  They will just continue to take children from other areas, like Newbury and Thatcham.  Eventually Woolton Hill will just have an aging population.  The paddock has not been used by the village, but now that the land is proposed for housing, villagers seem to wish to use the land.  Use of the land for allotments seems strange as houses in Woolton Hill have gardens which could be used for growing vegetables.  Three is plenty of unused land in Woolton Hill.  Paddock has never been suitable for anything other than building.  Building can only improve this unused land.  Building will bring more resources to the village.

In response to the consultation on the additional supporting information, five letters raising further objection have been received:

 Not addressed concerns.  Legal view bases its view on three recent cases, and focuses primarily on numbers and not context.  Tetbury and Cuckfield are significantly larger villages, and therefore the developments are smaller in proportion than is the case with Harwood Paddock.  Stage 1 RSA carried out prior to the start of term so irrelevant.  Although no accidents recorded, there have been many close shaves.  Why should residents be forced to walk through a new housing estate?  Bat survey proves there are bats.  How can this be solving a housing issue if larger properties in Royal Chase remain unsold?  People want a nice house with a big garden not an estate house costing the same.  Money making scheme.  Does not contribute to the village at all.  Issues relating to school places, traffic, sewerage not addressed.  Tone of letter from the applicant is pressuring the Council to make a premature decision.  Application should go before an appropriate planning committee rather than being determined by a Planning Officer.  Precedent for other developers to use similar arguments regarding development in an AONB and proved local need v’s Borough need.  How is this not major development?  Development is not needs as at least 7000 new homes proposed to be built in a 20- 25mile radius, with 3000 of these already granted.

Relevant Planning History

BDB/46230 Erection of business units, new access, associated Withdrawn car parking and landscaping 18/09/00

BDB/51776 Erection of business units, new access, associated Refused car parking and landscaping 07/06/02

74 of 213

BDB/54544 Erection of 5 no. business units, new access, Granted associated car parking and extensive landscaping 06/10/03

BDB/58703 Erection of 5 no. business units, new access, Granted associated car parking and extensive landscaping 12/08/04

BDB/59580 Erection of 5 no. business units, new access and Granted associated car parking 12/04/06

BDB/63355 Erection of 5 no. two storey office units (Amendment Granted to planning permission BDB/59580 for re-design of 26/07/06 units 1, 3, 4 and 5 and alterations to parking arrangements)

BDB/64299 Repositioning of unit 3 and amendment to parking Granted layout for unit 3 (Amendment to planning permission 13/10/06 BDB 63355)

BDB/65674 Erection of 2 no. B1 office units with associated Granted parking 23/05/07

BDB/74064 Erection of 16 no. dwellings including associated Refused infrastructure and landscaping 22/06/11 Appeal Allowed 06/01/12

Assessment

The assessment on this application is broken down into the following sections:

 Principle of Development  Community Facility Provision  Highway Assessment  Impact on Landscape Character and Visual Amenity  Affordable Housing  Housing Mix  Impact on Amenity  Impact on the Natural Environment  Flood Risk and Drainage  Code for Sustainable Homes  Local Infrastructure and Community Facilities  Consultation Comments  Conclusion

75 of 213

It should be noted that the Local Planning Authority has confirmed that an Environment Impact Assessment is not required in this instance.

The application was not publicised correctly via the site notice or press notice as a departure, and therefore a revised site notice was displayed on 16 September (CHECK!) and a revised press notice was displayed on 19 September 2013. Given that the nature of the proposal has not changed, and that the application has been consulted upon publically by the Council and widely by the Parish Council and applicant, it is considered unlikely that any further significant objections would be received. However, the recommendation made by Officers is subject to completion of this public consultation period and receipt of no further significant objection to the principle of a departure.

Principle of Development

 Sustainable Development

In this regard, housing development will assist in boosting the housing market and contributing to the economy of the Borough. Additional households in an area will make a social contribution through supporting and sustaining existing community services, creating a vibrant community and providing housing in an area to support present and future needs. Whilst there is doubt over whether a new community centre is required, the D1 and D2 use classes include a variety of uses that would benefit the community and therefore the transfer of the land to the community is considered to be a benefit of this scheme. Furthermore, through a comprehensive landscape management plan, the 76 of 213 preservation of existing protected trees and biodiversity a development can perform an environmental role (discussed in more detail in the remainder of this report). Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development would constitute sustainable development under the NPPF.

3 Unless material considerations indicate otherwise 4 For example those policies relating to designated sites such as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (see Paragraph 116) 77 of 213

“major development”, there is no requirement to show that exceptional circumstances are met or that granting planning permission for the development would be in the public interest. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF would however remain relevant and the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply. It would clearly still be necessary to give full consideration to the impact of the development on the landscape character and scenic beauty of the area as a whole and to consider the benefits of the proposal against the impacts. In short, if the benefits outweigh the impacts, then the development should be approved. These matters are considered in the following sections.

Definition of Major Development within the AONB

The applicant has submitted a legal opinion in support of this application. In respect of this proposal for 49 dwellings, the applicant has been unable to demonstrate that the proposal is, or is not, classified as a major development and thus whether exceptional circumstances need to be demonstrated to show it is in the public interest. Officers have therefore sought to make their own assessment, which is set out below.

Berrells Road, Tetbury (APP/F1610/A/12/2173305) - Secretary of State (SoS) Decision Letter dated 13 February 2013:

In conclusion, in this case, the proposal for up to 39 dwellings in the AONB did not constitute “major development”.

Land north of Brylanes Close, Cuckfield, West Sussex (APP/D3830/A/10/2132146) – Inspector Decision Letter dated 28 April 2011:

78 of 213

In summary, in the Cuckfield case, it was considered that the residential development of 42 dwellings in the AONB did not constitute “major development”.

Highfield Farm, Tetbury (APP/F1610/A/11/2165778) – SoS Decision Letter dated 13 February 2013:

This was an outline application for the erection of 250 dwellings within the Cotswold AONB. An Inspector allowed the appeal and that decision was called in by the SoS who agreed that the proposed development would conflict with the Development Plan, however he considered that there were material considerations weighing in favour of the proposal, one of which being the ability to contribute to meeting the severe shortfall in market and affordable housing provision, as well as the main considerations weighing against the proposal being the reduction in the natural beauty of the AONB. Having weighed up all of the material considerations, the SoS agreed that the considerations in favour of the proposal outweighed the conflict with the Development Plan and the appeal was allowed.

In summary, the village of Woolton Hill itself is significantly smaller than Cuckfield and is not considered to be comparable. The proposed development at Woolton Hill is clearly larger than that considered in the Cuckfield case. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the proposed development of up to 49 residential units, together with provision of a new community facility, within Woolton Hill would constitute major development within the AONB within this context, and therefore the three exceptions tests set out within Paragraph 116 of the NPPF should be applied in determining this application.

79 of 213

 Need for the Development

The Borough Council’s 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR), which was reported to the Planning and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee (P&I OSCOM) in October 2012, set out the Borough Council’s 5 year housing land supply position for 1st April 2012 against three different housing targets. These included the South East Plan target of 945 dwellings per annum (dpa) and the locally derived housing target of 770 dpa, which was agreed by Cabinet in October 2012 as an appropriate interim figure for land supply purposes (a range of 730 to 770 dpa was agreed for future planning purposes, subject to further evidence).

 Cost and Scope of developing elsewhere

Whilst planning permission has recently been granted on appeal for a development of up to 450 dwellings at the Marnel Park site in Basingstoke (BDB/75761 and BDB/75762 refer), this development would not in itself address the Boroughs current housing shortfall. In addition, an appeal has been lodged against the Council’s refusal of Kennel Farm (BDB/77382) however a decision on that appeal would not be made until early next year, and even if this appeal were to be allowed, there would still be a shortfall in housing.

As such, the Council cannot demonstrate the housing need could be met on a suitable site outside the AONB.

 Impact on the Landscape and scope for mitigation

 Conclusion

There is a housing shortfall within the Borough, and the Borough is unable to demonstrate that a suitable site would be available to meet this shortfall. In the context of Paragraph 116, these amount to “exceptional circumstances” where permitting the proposed development of up to 49 units could reasonably be considered to meet the wider “public interest”, in the terms of the NPPF. There would be a localised impact on the AONB through permitting this development, however it is considered that this impact can be mitigated through design and landscaping, such that the character of Woolton Hill is not adversely affected. The presumption in favour of sustainable development at Paragraph 14 therefore still applies and the adverse impacts of the development must be weighed in the balance against the wider benefits, an assessment on these issues is made in the sections below and a conclusion drawn at the end of this report.

81 of 213

 Prematurity

The proposed development would have an impact on only a small area of the Borough and is not considered to be so significant that it would prejudice the scale and location of development in the Local Plan, given that the proposal (for up to 49 units) would amount to just 1.7% of the 5 year housing land requirement and less than 0.6% of the overall 15 year requirement. Approving this application would not be premature in Officer’s view.

Community Facility provision

The Council’s Policy Team comment: “As the site lies outside of the Settlement Policy Boundary, Saved Policy D8 applies which states that as an exception to the general protection of the countryside adjacent to rural settlements, planning permission will be granted for development which the Council is satisfied will meet a genuine need. The applicant has not submitted any detailed supporting information to provide evidence of the need for a community use. Therefore this is contrary to Saved Policy D8.”

The Community Facilities Officer has requested that an off-site contribution towards the local community church hall project is sought through S106, advising that “We support the proposal to transfer land for D1/D2 uses to the parish council, but would have reservations about the parish councils aspiration to provide a new community building on the land, as we feel there is currently adequate community hall provision within an acceptable distance and that there is currently insufficient evidence and funding to support a scheme.”

The NPPF is supportive throughout in respect of delivering community facilities and services. Paragraph 70 in particular states that to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments. Paragraph 184 recognises that neighbourhood planning provides a powerful set of tools for local people to ensure that they get the right types of development for their community.

It is understood that this proposal came about as a direct result of the comments received through the applicant’s public consultation and community engagement. A public exhibition was held at East Woodhay Village Hall on 21st May 2013 and one of the questions asked was how the public would prefer the land to be transferred to the community if the development were approved. The results show a preference for a new GP Surgery, with allotments and a village hall being the second most preferred options. The other responses included open space/recreation use such as a children’s play area or a pre-school nursery. All such uses would be permissible under the D1 and D2 use class.

It is noted that there is no existing allotment provision within the East Woodhay Parish, and therefore no existing resident within Woolton Hill has access to allotments within the immediate vicinity of their property. There is an identified local need for the provision of 82 of 213 allotments in Woolton Hill, which is evidenced in the East Woodhay Parish Plan. Page 27 of that document states “59% of residents were in favour of the provision of allotments, but first the Parish Council will need to provide a suitable site”. The standards set out in the Leisure Recreation Needs Assessment require allotments to be within 150 metres of the nearest bus stop and be capable of providing more than 10 allotment plots. These standards could be met on the site, and through the S106 legal agreement, a contribution is being secured for the provision of allotments within the Parish.

There is no evidence within the East Woodhay Parish Plan of a local need for alternative community facilities, however it is noted that at the time the Parish Plan was prepared, there was no realistic prospect of a facility being delivered locally in the absence of a suitable site. However, there is clearly a local need for allotments and the transfer of land to the community would provide a ‘suitable site’ required to facilitate such provision.

In conclusion, the proposal cannot be reconciled against Saved Policy D8 of the Local Plan, as there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a need for the proposed mix of D1/D2 uses on this site. In addition, other than for the provision of allotments, there will be no funding available for the provision of a community building on the site. Private funding may be sourced elsewhere however this will be a matter outside of the control of the Council. Notwithstanding that the proposed transfer of land could facilitate the provision of a considerable number of allotment plots to meet local need, if this is how the community wishes to see the land utilised, the transfer of this land to the community will enable the community to plan positively to deliver the social, recreations and cultural services it required to serve it. This approach is endorsed by Paragraph 70 of the NPPF, and enabled by the Neighbourhood Planning process.

Recognising that the planning system has an important role to play in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy and inclusive communities, the transfer of land as proposed by the applicant is supported by Officers. The transfer will be secured via a legal agreement. Planning conditions will be necessary to control the future use of the land, since come uses within the D2 use class in particular, such as a cinema, concert hall, swimming bath etc., would clearly not be acceptable in this location. The design and scale of any building and the final layout of the site will also need to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority to ensure an acceptable development in keeping with the character of the area.

Highway Assessment

83 of 213 no footway along the site frontage. There is a footway beginning at its junction with Greenways, some 250m to the west.

The TRICS database has been used to estimate trips per dwelling and for the proposed 49 dwellings, it is estimated that there would be an additional 28 vehicle trips on the network in the morning peak hour and 30 vehicle trips on the network in the evening peak hour. The Local Highway Authority advises that this would result in a modest increase of traffic onto the highway network of one extra vehicle every one to two minutes in the peak hours. It is however noted that Woolton Hill is an unsustainable location and therefore the actual trip rates for the development may be marginally higher, given that there is likely to be less use of bicycles and public transport in this area. No objection is raised to the impact of increased vehicle trips as the local highway network in the vicinity of the site has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increase.

A simple T-junction is proposed to provide vehicle access to and from the site to serve the proposed development. The Highway Officer has confirmed that the proposed design is suitable to accommodate the vehicle traffic arising from this development, however as there is a fall from Tile Barn Row into the site; details of gradients shall be required. Therefore, conditions are recommended to control the detailed design of the vehicle access.

84 of 213

The indicative site plan proposes a footpath through the site, from the proposed pedestrian access onto Cutters Hill Road, to the proposed pedestrian access on Tile Barn Road. Whilst the provision of the footpath through the site is encouraged, HCC have stated that a footpath along Tile Barn Road, connecting to Greenways and Cutters Hill Road, would be preferable. The applicant has prepared an illustrative plan to demonstrate that there would be space for a path to be provided along the existing grass verge along the southern side of Tile Barn Row. A no-dig method of construction would be necessary to minimise any impact on the Root Protection Areas of protected trees, and therefore it is likely that a public footpath, as requested by HCC could be provided.

85 of 213

Impact on Landscape Character and Visual Amenity

 Existing Landscape Character

 Existing Visual Amenity

There are clear views through to the site from the gaps in between the trees and vegetation along the northern boundary. These views from Tile Barn Row looking south east and south west are towards a large and unspoilt area of green open space with 86 of 213 mature trees along the south eastern boundary. Existing housing along the north eastern boundary is however evident in these views, and the recent development at the Linden Homes site is prominent from the lane. There are also extensive private views into the site from the rear gardens of properties that surround the wider area of scrubland.

 Impact on landscape character

The Local Plan Inspector’s report from 2005, which comments on the Harwood Paddock site states at Paragraph 1.46.2:

The site is sloping in nature and some concern was raised regarding the potential for terracing and retaining walls to accommodate this development. These are not a feature found on the site or in the immediate vicinity and are unlikely to be supported as this could potentially urbanise the site adversely. Therefore, the applicant was requested to submit additional information during consideration of this application, which included cross sections of the development and indicative streetscenes. This information demonstrates that some cutting and filling will be necessary as well as some terracing due to the topography of the site, however the illustrative plans are considered to demonstrate that the proposed development could be accommodated within the site in such a way so as to respect the existing character of Woolton Hill. Therefore, it is considered that the impact of this development could be minimised through careful design at reserved matters stage.

There are no specific concerns regarding the proposed location of the community use, which would be in the north east corner of the site. Through careful on site layout and design, a community use could be accommodated on site without detriment and without harm to the character of the area.

87 of 213

The access point is considered to be acceptable, as all existing trees on the site are being retained.

 Impact on visual amenity

Furthermore, it is clear that through careful design, such as maintaining a spacious character to the development with gaps between buildings, together with a robust landscape strategy for the site, that the visual impact of the development could be mitigated.

 Density

The applicant proposes a net developable area of 2.3 ha which equates to a housing density of approximately 22 dwellings per hectare (dph). This density calculation does not include open space, clearly if open space were included, the density would be reduced.

The proposed density of development at 22dph would result in a development typically comprising a large proportion of detached houses with some semi-detached and terraced housing to provide smaller units. Given that a similar density of development is found in the surrounding area, it is considered that the site has capacity to accommodate up to 49 dwellings.

 Illustrative Masterplan

Whilst there is no objection to the principle of the proposed development, there are concerns regarding the indicative layout that has been submitted. Whilst Officers are satisfied that up to 49 dwellings, together with a community facility, could be accommodated within the site without detriment to the character of the area, revisions to the indicative layout would be necessary prior to submission and acceptance of a reserved matters scheme.

The Illustrative Masterplan contains a number of features which demonstrate that the site would have capacity to accommodate 49 dwellings and the proposed community facility. These features include: front gardens of a moderate depth and spacing of several metres between houses which will help to create a more rural or suburban streetscene in keeping with the surrounding area; a large proportion of detached dwellings; and slightly curving roads which reflect the street pattern of the surrounding area. The location of an open space and the community facility will create an open area, enabling deep views into the site from Tile Barn Row which helps the creation of a less dense character.

88 of 213

 Open Space

The total quantity of green space required for the proposed housing development is 4656sqm. This would need to be multi-functional green space including:

 space suitable for one kickabout area (minimum 1600m² plus 10m buffer to housing);  accessible natural green space; and  space for relaxation and informal recreation including seating, footpaths and landscaped areas.

The applicant has demonstrated that the overall quantity of open space proposed would be in excess of the adopted Green Space Standards, however the Open Spaces Officer has raised an objection, stating that there is not one space sufficient in size and therefore capable of accommodating a kickabout of a minimum of 1600sqm, with a rectangular level grass area with 10m buffer to housing. In the view of the Open Spaces Officer, in order to deliver an acceptable scheme in open space terms there would be an impact on the proposed housing numbers and /or size of units. An objection is therefore raised on this basis.

The applicant has confirmed that increasing the size of the kickabout area to 1600m², would result in the loss of two plots which are adjacent to the space as currently shown on the indicative masterplan.

It is clear that a balance needs to be struck between providing a good quality development, and according with an adopted standard. In this case, there would be a shortfall of 400m² of kickabout provision if a scheme of 49 units came forward at reserved matters stage along the lines of that shown on the indicative masterplan. It could therefore be argued that this shortfall would not meet the needs of future residents of the development, since it did not accord with the adopted standards. However, it could also be argued that this is a less dense development than that proposed under 13/00897/OUT, which proposes an additional 18 dwellings, but only a marginally larger area of kickabout space on site. In addition, this shortfall in kickabout provision should be balanced against the wider benefits of the scheme, and in this regard this application proposes 0.243 ha of

89 of 213 community land, which could be used in a variety of ways as determined by the local community.

Therefore, on balance, whilst this outline application, if developed along the lines of the illustrative masterplan, would not provide a 1600m² of kickabout space, this would not result in a significant adverse impact on the amenity of future residents given the recognised wider benefits of the scheme. It is also borne in mind that this is an outline application, where the layout of site is reserved for assessment at a later stage. Therefore, it may be entirely possible for a 1600m² kickabout to be provided one the detailed design is considered.

The attenuation areas will need to be accessible to residents to provide accessible natural greenspace, and this can be secured through the detailed design stage.

 Conclusion

It is considered that the site has capacity to accommodate up to 49 dwellings and a community centre without detriment to the landscape character and visual amenity of the area. The proposed density is considered acceptable and would be comparable with the immediate area. There are some concerns regarding the illustrative layout, however as layout is a reserved matter, these concerns can be resolved through the detailed design stage. The shortfall in kickabout provision as currently indicated is noted, but this is not considered to lead to a significantly adverse impact on the amenity of future residents given the wider benefits brought about by this development and the increased provision of community land within the locality. In summary, development on this site would provide an opportunity to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment that would bring benefits for the local community. As such, it is appropriate to secure a Landscape Management Plan for the site as part of the S106 agreement. Further, given the above conclusions, it is considered that the principle of development is acceptable and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Local Plan and the NPPF.

Affordable Housing

The application proposes 49 units, and therefore an on-site provision of 19.6 units would be required to comply with this policy.

Housing Services have been consulted on this application and have confirmed that the housing needs in the East Woodhay Parish, within which the site is located, are as follows:

90 of 213

East Woodhay inc Woolton Hill

General Needs Transfers

There is a new supply of 6 units coming forward on the Linden Homes scheme in Woolton Hill, which is a recently completed development on 16 units to the north-west of this application site.

Given the limited need for affordable housing within the Parish, the applicants propose to reduce the on-site provision to 7 units (4 for rent and 3 for shared ownership), and to make up the balance (equivalent to 12.6 units) through an off-site contribution. This would mean that an affordable housing contribution of 40% of the development is made by the applicant, however this would be made up from a mix of on-site provision and an off- site financial contribution. The off-site contribution, secured via a S106 agreement, would be spent in the rural areas of the Borough, potentially covering a wider than the East Woodhay Parish. The applicant also proposes that of the 40%, 20% would be provided as rented units, and 20% would be provided as shared ownership units.

The Housing Services Team comment: “On the basis of the sites isolated location in relation to the towns and service centres of the Borough the Housing Service accepted this argument and therefore 7 units will be provided on-site and a contribution in lieu of 12.6 units provided as a financial contribution. Equally the 50/50 split of rent and shared ownership was accepted on the same basis.” As such, Housing Services accept the applicant’s proposals in this instance.

91 of 213

In this case, the information available demonstrates that within the East Woodhay Parish, there is not a need for 19.6 units on the application site. However there is a need for affordable housing within the wider rural community. Therefore, the applicant’s proposals will meet the immediate need for affordable housing within the parish of East Woodhay, through providing 7 units on site. The wider need is met through the off-site contribution and this approach is considered acceptable in this instance and in accordance with the Affordable Housing SPD.

Housing Mix

The applicant envisages that 5% of the properties would be small units. This falls below the 30% required by Saved Policy C3 of the Local Plan and as such, the Planning Policy Team has advised that the proposal is contrary to Saved Policy C3.

The applicant cites the housing requirements evidence base as including the 2007 Central Hampshire and New Forest Strategic Housing Market Assessment, a 2010 Basingstoke

92 of 213 and Deane Rural Housing Assessment (HMA), together with an updated draft of this document which was presented to Members of the P&I OSCOM 5 June 2013. Broadly, these documents do not define a market housing size or mix requirement, noting that housing mix is effectively market led. The HMA in particular suggests avoiding placing constraints on developers that will prevent housing delivery.

In conclusion, Paragraph 7.3 of the Housing Mix SPD and Paragraph 50 of the NPPF enable a more flexible approach to be taken with regards to housing mix, than Saved Policy C3. It is considered that given the particular character of Woolton Hill and the need to ensure a high quality development that respects the immediate context, that in this case, a provision of 5% small units within the scheme would be acceptable. Whilst noting that this is not compliant with Saved Policy C3, it is considered that this balanced approach is supported under the NPPF.

Impact on Amenity

The indicative masterplan demonstrates that up to 49 dwellings could be accommodated on site without causing adverse harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties by way of overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impacts. The window to window and window to boundary relationships between proposed and existing dwellings would accord with the requirements of the Residential Amenity SPD such that there would be sufficient separation between properties to ensure that privacy is retained.

It is clear that the outlook from the existing properties bounding this site would change as a result of this proposal; however there is no requirement in planning terms to maintain the

93 of 213 status quo. In this instance, the illustrative masterplan and indicative streetscenes demonstrate that an appropriate development could be accommodated within this site, maintaining adequate separation between developments and providing a robust planting scheme.

In relation to the proposed community use, the submitted information indicates that a building of up to 500m² together with parking could be accommodated within the community land. There are no proposed plans of the building as yet, given the outline nature of this application, however officers are satisfied that the site could accommodate such a building, together with associated parking, without adverse impact on neighbouring amenity. The future use of the land and any building would also be controlled by planning condition, giving a local resident and nearby neighbour the opportunity to consider and comment on any detailed plan for the site at a later reserved matters stage. Planning conditions can also be used to control the hours of use of any building, to ensure that amenities of neighbours are maintained.

It is therefore considered that the proposed development would respect the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Local Plan.

Impact on the Natural Environment

 Archaeology

 Biodiversity

94 of 213

In summary, Natural England does not object to the proposed development and the Council’s Biodiversity Officer concludes that the proposal is unlikely to affect a protected species.

 Trees

95 of 213

 Land Contamination

Flood Risk and Drainage

Code for Sustainable Homes

96 of 213

Local Infrastructure and Community Facilities

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

 Art

Given the scale of the scheme, there is potential to include artwork on site as part of the development. The Council will liaise with the developer to secure appropriate provision.

 BEST

 Community Facilities

97 of 213

 Education

 Playing fields

 Play areas

A contribution towards an enhancement of the Local Equipped Area of Play at the Church Lane playground will be secured to off-set the impact of additional residents using this facility.

 Allotments

Allotment provision in this area would be managed by East Woodhay Parish Council, however there is currently no such provision in the Parish. A contribution towards the provision of allotments within the Parish is considered necessary to off-set the additional demand for such facilities arising from this development.

Consultation Comments

98 of 213

Conclusion

This site will deliver a housing development to contribute towards an existing shortfall and this would constitute a clear benefit of the scheme. In addition, the provision of additional housing development within Woolton Hill will assist in supporting and sustaining the existing community services such as the local shop, schools and health care facilities which would be of wider benefit to the community as a whole. The provision of land for a flexible use, to be determined by the local community through neighbourhood planning is consistent with Government Policy and the NPPF. Such provision is a clear benefit of this scheme.

Conditions

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

Drawing no. 1000 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. SK-002B received 21 June 2013

99 of 213

Drawing no. EDP1923/02 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. EDP1923/03 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. EDP1923/16 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. EDP1923/22 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. 14363-05 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. 14363-06 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. SK-006 received 14 August 2013 GRM Development Solutions Site Appraisal Report, dated April 2013 GRM Development Solutions Gas Monitoring Letter Report, dated June 2013

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

5 Applications for the approval of reserved matters shall be in accordance with the principles described and illustrated in the "Design and Access Statement" dated June 2013 and the Illustrative Masterplan (Drawing no. SK-002B dated May 2013)) with regard to the general areas of development, including approximate floor areas and storey heights. REASON: To ensure an appropriate co-ordinated high quality form of development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

6 80% of small dwellings (i.e. a dwelling with no more than 2 bedrooms) shall have a gross floor area of no more than 70m². In addition, 15% or more of the market dwellings shall be built to Lifetime Mobility Standards unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To comply with Saved Policy C3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan and the Council's adopted Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards Supplementary Planning Guidance.

100 of 213

Planning Authority. The development shall be completed and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To preserve the landscape character and visual amenity of the area and to protect the privacy of the occupiers of adjoining properties in accordance Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

10 No development shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of screen walls and/or fences to be erected. In addition, an implementation timetable shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The approved screen walls and/or fences shall be erected in accordance with the approved details and timetable and shall subsequently be maintained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011

101 of 213

part of the planning application for the benefit of the local amenities and the enhancement of the development itself, in accordance with Saved Policies E1(ii) and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

12 Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, a 'Code for Sustainable Homes', 'Design Stage Assessment' of the residential development, hereby approved, must be carried out by an independent licensed Code for Sustainable Homes assessor, and the results of the assessment incorporating the 'Design Stage Assessment' report and 'interim certificate' from the BRE, must submitted to the Local Planning Authority in writing.

'Final Certification' from BRE or equivalent body, for each dwelling, must be submitted to the Local planning Authority within 3 months of post completion of the development phase.

REASON: In the interests of sustainable development and to ensure that the development is constructed to the required environmental standard, in the context of Saved Policy E1 v) of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and Appendix 5 'Construction Statements' of the 'Design and Sustainability' Supplementary Planning Document.

(a) details of how mature trees adjacent to the area of the proposed development will be protected during the construction works.

102 of 213

or birds and any features that they are dependent on. This is to include the results of the additional dusk activity surveys and measures that will be taken to avoid light spillage along the known bat commuter routes and measures to ensure enough buffer width is retained along the known bat commuter routes.

(d) provisions for the supervision and monitoring of the plan, including briefing construction personnel, and the name and contact details of the person responsible for this;

REASON: To minimise the impact on the existing biodiversity of the site and its surroundings, in accordance with Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan.

15 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, 103 of 213

the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i. the parking and turning of vehicles of site operatives and visitors (all to be established within one week of the commencement of development); ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv. wheel washing facilities or an explanation why they are not necessary; v. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; vi. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; vii. a scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and viii. the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway, particularly during the Monday to Friday AM peak (08.00 to 09.00) and PM peak (16.30 to 18.00) periods. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

19 No work relating to the construction of the development hereby approved, including

104 of 213

works of demolition or preparation prior to operations, or internal painting or fitting out, shall take place before the hours of 0730 nor after 1800 Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays nor on Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

21 Any community building subsequently approved under reserved matters shall not be occupied until the provision for the turning of vehicles and the parking of commercial and staff vehicles, including for disabled use, and the secure storage of bicycles has been made in compliance with current parking standards in order to serve that part of the development. The areas of land provided for these uses shall not be used for any other purposes than parking, storage and turning. REASON: In the interest of highway safety and to make proper provision for off-street parking in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

Informative(s):-

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

105 of 213

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

2. Consent under the Town and Country Planning Acts must not be taken as approval for any works carried out on any footway, including a Public Right of Way, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the publicly maintained highway. The development could involve works within the public highway. It is an offence to commence those works without the permission of the Highway Authority, Hampshire County Council. In the interests of highway safety the development should not commence on-site until permission has been obtained from the Highway Authority authorising any necessary works within the publicly maintained highway. Public Utility apparatus may also be affected by the development. Contact the appropriate public utility service to ensure agreement on any necessary alterations. Advice on this matter can be obtained from Hampshire County Council's Area Office, telephone 0845 8504422.

3. The Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan and the Habitat Enhancement/ Management Plan should include all the wildlife protection, mitigation and enhancement measures given in the Section 4 of the Ecological Appraisal Report and should include a management plan for the areas of accessible natural green space which should cover a time period of at least ten years.

4. Arboricultural Implications Assessment (AIA);

The Arboricultural Method Statement should set out the proposals for avoiding disturbance to the physical protection forming the construction exclusion zone once it

106 of 213

is installed. Consideration, allowances and planning for all construction operations that will be undertaken in the vicinity of trees will need to include:

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

offering a pre-application advice; seeking further information following receipt of the application; considering the imposition of conditions and or the completion of a s.106 legal agreement.

In this instance:

the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, was provided with pre-application advice.

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

6. Whilst the Council has given outline planning consent for a flexible D1 / D2 use on this site as part of this application, the applicant should note that the following uses within the D2 Use Class of the Use Classes Order 2005 may not be considered suitable under a reserved matters application:

Cinema, concert hall, dance hall, sports hall, swimming baths, skating rink, gymnasium, bingo hall and/or a casino.

107 of 213

Major Application

Cttee: 02/10/13 Item No. 3

Application no: 13/00993/FUL For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address B & V Masonry Ltd, Shothanger Works Kingsclere Road Wootton St. Lawrence Basingstoke Proposal Change of use of land from agricultural to stone masonry. Erection of a new workshop building with installation of solar panels. Creation of additional car park and storage yard. Amended HGV access and various alterations to the external areas

Registered: 18 July 2013 Expiry Date: 15 August 2013 Type of Full Planning Case Officer: Katherine Miles Application: Application 01256 845249 Applicant: B & V Masonry Ltd Agent: Mr Andrew Watton Ward: Sherborne St. John Ward Member(s): Cllr John Leek

Parish: MONK OS Grid Reference: 460114 154460 SHERBORNE CP

Recommendation: It is RECOMMENDED that the applicant be invited to enter into a legal agreement (in accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and Policies C1 and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011) between the applicant and the Borough and County Councils to secure a contribution towards the Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport.

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

On completion of the legal agreement the Planning and Development Manager be delegated to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed at the end of this report.

Reasons for Approval

1. The proposal supports the expansion of an existing rural business, enabling it to continue to operate at its established location, and to remain competitive within its market. The proposal therefore supports the economy of this Borough and is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 2. Whilst the proposed building would be prominent within the landscape, it is considered that the proposed design, would respect the character of the existing site, and would not have a significant adverse impact upon the landscape character or visual amenity of the area. As such, the proposal is considered to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E6 of the Basingstoke & Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 3. The proposal would conserve the biodiversity value and nature conservation interests of the site and as such the proposal would comply with the National Planning Policy

108 of 213

Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 4. The development would not cause an adverse impact on highway safety and adequate parking would be provided to serve the proposed development and as such the proposal complies with Saved Policy A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 5. The proposal would respect the environment through the use of renewable technologies used in both the design and future life of the building. The proposed building would achieve a BREEAM 'Very Good' rating and as such would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Saved Policies E1 and A6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and Appendix 5 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2008. 6. Through the provision of a Section 106 agreement the development will provide adequate infrastructure to mitigate the impact of the development. The development therefore complies with Saved Policies C1 and C9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011, the Community Infrastructure Levy regulation 2010 and Hampshire County Council 's adopted Transport Contributions Policy (September 2007).

General comments

This application has been brought to the Development Control Committee at the request of Councillor Leek for the following reasons:

“The proposed development will be detrimental to the landscape character, particularly taking into account the prominent position of the site with its magnificent views over the Thames Valley and its proximity to the North Wessex Downs AONB. The site lies on high ground and can be seen for a considerable distance.

The existing buildings were largely former agricultural buildings, are modest in scale and reasonably sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area. The proposed development is substantially larger in scale and is to be constructed with materials inappropriate to the very rural character of the area. The new building will be a harsh eyesore in an otherwise beautiful location with the extensive views over open countryside.

The activities on the site have gradually expanded from the “curtilage” of the original agricultural buildings and have strayed into the adjacent agricultural land. I have brought this to the attention of officers on previous occasions but as far as I am aware no enforcement action has been taken. The application appears to be trying to regularise the illegal use of open countryside which is unacceptable and sets a very bad precedent. If the application is refused I would ask that enforcement action is taken to ensure that the business activities are restricted to the approved area. It would be helpful if members could be provided with plans showing the approved area.

The Planning Statement accompanying the application appears to be a box ticking exercise and is factually incorrect. For instance it claims that the South East Plan (“SEP”) was not revoked but remains part of the “development plan”. The SEP has been revoked except for minor exceptions. It also refers to the Sherborne St John Village Plan (“SSJVP”). The applicant appears to have very limited local knowledge otherwise he would know that the site lies in Monk Sherborne Parish and that references to SSJVP are irrelevant. The Statement should be ignored.

109 of 213

There are more appropriate sites on the industrial areas of Basingstoke or Newbury (where the applicant appears to have his head office) and I am not aware that there is employment demand from residents in my ward.

The application should be refused.”

Planning Policy

The site is located outside any identified Settlement Policy Boundary and as such is considered to lie within the Countryside. The site lies adjacent to the boundary of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Core Planning Policies Section 1 (Building a strong, competitive economy) Section 3 (Supporting a prosperous rural economy) Section 4 (Supporting sustainable transport) Section 7 (Requiring good design) Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment)

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies)

Policy E1 (Development Control) Policy E6 (Landscape Character) Policy E7 (Nature/Biodiversity Conservation) Policy C1 (Section 106 contributions) Policy A1 (Car parking) Policy A2 (Encouraging walking, cycling and the use of public transport)

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

Appendix 5 Design and Sustainability SPD: 'Construction Statements' Appendix 6 Design and Sustainability SPD: 'Waste and Recycling' Appendix 14 Design and Sustainability SPD: ‘Countryside Design Summary’ Landscape Character Assessment SPG Non-residential Parking Standards SPG

Other material documents

S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Planning Guidance. Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport (BEST) The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 Circular 11/95: The Use of Planning Conditions Council Plan 2013 to 2017

Description of Site

Shothanger Works is located on the south side of the A339 on the junction with the Wootton Lane.

110 of 213

The business was established in the 1980's following the conversion of several redundant farm buildings. The buildings are utilised by B & V Masonry, a traditional stone masons specialising in the manufacture and installation of memorials, marble bathrooms, granite kitchen worktops, natural stone doors and windows, fireplaces, staircases, sculptures and architectural stonework. The site operates under the brand name “stoneCIRCLE”.

The site has been subject to several applications for extensions and alterations since the use was established. This has resulted in there being a variety of buildings of varying sizes spreading across much of the site. There is also an extant planning permission for a large extension to the south of the main building, granted under BDB/76308 on 25 June 2012.

The existing buildings are timber clad with tiled roofs. There is a brick tower within the site which is approximately 10m high. The main workshop buildings are 6m high and there is a converted barn approximately 9m high. In addition, there is an existing single storey showroom and a small residential flat within the site. The existing buildings provide 1545m² of retail, office and industrial workshop floorspace.

The site is accessed off the A339 and sits in an elevated position. The existing buildings are highly visible within the surrounding landscape. To the front of the site is a gravel staff and visitors parking area. This area is bounded by a low brick wall topped with iron railings. There is a small grassed area to the front together with an ornamental pond. However there is no mature landscaping to the front of the site. To the rear of the buildings is an open storage yard bounded by a steep grass embankment, above which is a field, the site of this current application. Within the field there is currently some open storage of raw materials, limited to the north western boundary of the field (for which there is no valid planning permission). The field itself is bounded by a native hedgerow.

Proposal

This application proposes a change of use of land to the south of the existing buildings from agricultural to stone masonry together with the erection of a new workshop building with installation of solar panels.

The proposed site covers 2.1 acres (0.8ha) located to the south and east of the existing buildings and yard. A new workshop with ancillary office space is proposed, providing 2210 m² of floorspace. The building would measure 72.8m long by 35m wide. The width would reduce to 23.4m for 18m at the western end. The building would have a height of 7m to the ridge and would be constructed using composite cladding, although the northern, western and eastern elevations would be clad using cedral weatherboarding to provide a timber effect. The roof would be constructing using profile sheet panel in a natural grey, and would incorporate solar panels on the southern roofslope.

The application also proposes the creation of an additional car park to the west of the proposed building and a storage yard to the east. An amended HGV access is also proposed, together with the formation of a new access and various alterations to the existing external areas.

Consultations

Monk Sherborne Parish Council: No objection:

“Monk Sherborne Parish Council have considered the above application and raise no

111 of 213 objection. With comments we would prefer either wood cladding or a green finish to the exterior, which the applicant indicated they would be happy to accommodate.

The council is aware that Borough Councillor Leek has asked that the application should go to committee if it was likely to be approved, this council feel that they should have been notified of any points that were relevant to refusing this application, the applicant did make a representation last year and the parish council felt that it should be supported as it was an improvement to the original site.”

Wootton St Lawrence Parish Council: Objection:

“Although the site lies in the parish of Monk Sherborne it is immediately adjacent to the parish of Wootton St Lawrence (“WSL”) and the proposal is likely to have a significant and adverse impact on the residents of WSL.

The proposed development will be detrimental to the landscape character, particularly taking into account the prominent position of the site with its magnificent views over the Thames Valley and its proximity to the North Wessex Downs AONB. The site lies on high ground and can be seen for a considerable distance.

This is an inappropriate development in the area and WSL PC therefore objects to the application.”

Planning Policy and Implementation Team: No objection.

Hampshire Council Highways: No objection subject to conditions.

Hampshire Council Archaeology: No objection subject to condition.

Local Highway Authority: No objection subject to conditions.

Landscape Officer: No objection subject to conditions.

Biodiversity Officer: No objection subject to conditions.

Public Observations

One letter of support has been received making the following comments:

 B&V Masonry have supplied Taylor Wimpey for over 10 years with high quality stone products for use in developments.  Economic benefits as they currently employ some 40 personnel.  Facilitate creation of new jobs.  Application is necessary to increase their output and meet demand.  Concern that without an expansion, they may be forced to seek larger premises elsewhere possibly leaving Basingstoke, taking employment elsewhere, which is not the best solution for anyone. 112 of 213

Relevant Planning History

BDB/15088 Conversion of barn to residential and sheds to Withdrawn workshop and storage for repair of oak framed 24/02/86 buildings

BDB/16042 Change of use from farm buildings to light Granted industrial units 20/06/84

BDB/17722 Extension to provide toilets and staff rest room Granted 28/01/85

BDB/22907 Erection of cottage on 0.060HA Refused 26/08/87

BDB/25379 Conversion of barn into dwelling Granted 05/10/88

BDB/25436 Erection of a showroom Granted 05/10/88

BDB/26499 Removal of condition 2 of planning permission Granted BDB/16042 & condition 5 of planning permission 29/03/89 BDB/25436 restricting the use of buildings to B & V Lettering Services Ltd

BDB/28485 Single storey extension to workshop Refused 28/03/90

BDB/31582 Replacement of flat roof with pitched roof Granted 16/05/91

BDB/43737 Extension of factory Granted 07/12/98

BDB/55622 Display of a non-illuminated hoarding sign Granted (retrospective) 12/06/03

BDB/68320 Erection of a single storey rear extension to Withdrawn existing workshop and stone/ tile store 27/06/08

BDB/70500 Erection of a single storey rear extension to Granted existing workshop and stone/ tile store 17/06/09

BDB/76308 ExtensionExtension ofof TimeTime LimitLimit specifiedspecified inin ConditionCondition 11 ofof GrantedGranted BDB/70500BDB/70500 forfor thethe erectionerection ofof aa singlesingle storeystorey rearrear 25/06/1225/06/2012 extensionextension toto existingexisting workshopworkshop andand stone/tstone/tileile storestore

113 of 213

Assessment

Introduction

In 2009, planning permission was granted under BDB/70500 for the erection of an extension to the existing buildings. The proposed extension sought to add 613m² (GEA) of floorspace to the south of the existing workshop, giving a total of 1844m² of retail, office and workshop space across the site. The proposal incorporated an external gantry crane mounted on rails fixed into the ground which would run from the new extension to the western boundary of the site.

This permission was renewed in June 2012 under BDB/76308 and therefore remains extant until June 2015. It is clear that this extant permission could not be implemented if planning permission was granted for the development the subject of this current application.

In the supporting documents accompanying this current application, the applicant states that the extant permission has not been implemented for the following reasons:

 At the time permission was granted, the economy was entering recession and it was not considered a good time to commit to extended borrowing;  The building would not provide enough space for the next 10-15 years;  It would be difficult to continue production on site during the build;  The proposal would lead to a cramped site;  There would be no overall increase in storage space;  There would be no increase in parking provision for staff or customers;  There would be no extra space for delivery vehicles to manoeuvre; and  An external gantry crane would be unsightly and detract from the appearance of the site.

In setting out the need for the proposed development, the applicant states that:

 The existing business, which was established in Newbury in 1968, and which expanded to the Shothanger Works site in Basingstoke in 1984, is involved in the supply, manufacture and installation of stone and items made from stone.  The company supply stone for projects locally, nationally and internationally.  The company are one of the most technically advanced stonemasons in this country.  The latest machinery has been installed on site, however technology is constantly changing.  The current workshop is too small to install the larger machines now required.  The company produce on average 8 kitchen tops per day. The company also have bespoke projects, including Churches, Conservation Trusts and retail clients.  There is currently no space available on site for setting out projects, to provide the final finishing (which is done by hand) and to quality check products before they are packaged and dispatched.

There applicant states that additional space is required within the yard for the storage of large raw materials. Additional manoeuvring space for receiving deliveries and for distributing finished products is also required. Within the workshop, the latest machinery needs to be accommodated to ensure the company can remain competitive in the market. Space is also required to set out and quality check finished products. There is also a

114 of 213 wider need to address current Health and Safety issues due to a lack of space within the existing buildings.

The applicant has considered relocation, however due to the unique nature of the business, a particular type of premises would be required, and location is very important. The applicant wishes to retain all operations on one site, i.e. manufacturing, distribution and retail sale. Therefore, the applicant has concluded that the most viable option would be to expand the existing business on the current site on land to the south of the site which is within the ownership and control of the applicant.

Principle of Development

The Adopted Local Plan refers to the need to sustain existing rural businesses; however, it focuses on converting existing buildings (Saved Policy EC6). Saved Policy D9, Rural Brownfield sites, would not apply in this instance, because the application site is not considered to be Brownfield land. There is therefore no explicit encouragement within the Local Plan for new buildings nor the physical expansion of existing rural employment sites at established business premises, outside allocated employment areas and within the countryside.

The NPPF is the relevant basis for assessing this current application. Paragraph 28 of the NPPF adopts a positive approach to rural economic development, where it is stated that:

“Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:

 support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well- designed new buildings;”

This paragraph is augmented by the general presumption in favour of sustainable development (Paragraph 14) which underpins the NPPF, as well as the emphasis placed on the planning system supporting and encouraging economic growth, particularly in Paragraph 19.

It is clear from the information provided by the applicant in the supporting statement that the existing business is well established within this Borough, is successful and has provided a justification for further space to support continued growth.

Whilst the location of the site could not be regarded as sustainable, in that it is not accessible by a range of public transport services, the site is accessed directly via the A339, a major road joining the M3 at Basingstoke to Newbury and beyond. Notwithstanding this, the proposal would result in only 6 additional trips on to the existing highway network, which would not have a significant impact in this location. Additionally, the NPPF also takes a more flexible approach to considering sustainability, and states that the planning system performs an economic role in contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, ensuring that sufficient land is available to support growth and innovation.

The Council Plan 2013-2017 and the material produced by the Council’s Economic Development team aims at driving economic prosperity in the Borough by supporting business to innovate and create new jobs and encouraging residents to develop their 115 of 213 skills. This also states that the Council is committed to supporting new and small businesses to develop and grow and aims at promoting the borough as a location for business.

The proposed development would enable the creation of six additional employment opportunities in the Borough. The proposed expansion would support an existing rural business, enabling it to continue to operate in one location within this Borough whilst remaining competitive in its market. As such, it is considered that the proposed development would support the rural economy and would be in line with the aims and objectives of the NPPF and the Council Plan. In light of the more positive approach adopted in the NPPF in relation to rural economic development when compared with the Local Plan, it is considered that the principle of providing a new building at this site, as well as the expansion of the existing site, is, on balance, acceptable in principle.

Impact on the Landscape Character and Visual Amenity of the Area

Notwithstanding the economic benefits of this proposal, it is still necessary to assess the proposal against the relevant environmental factors associated with the sites location, including its impact on the landscape.

The site is located immediately adjacent to the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and consequently it will be necessary to have regard to Paragraph 115 of the NPPF which states that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and that land within that designation has the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

It is also necessary to have regard to the more general landscape impact considerations within the NPPF, including Paragraph 109 which states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. Saved Policy E6 of the Local Plan and the Borough Landscape Assessment are also relevant to assessment of this application.

The site comprises a historic farmstead which has been converted into stonemasonry workshops, a showroom and offices with associated external storage yards and parking areas. Public rights of the way cross the landscape to the south and east of the site and to the north and west vehicular routes pass the site. From the passing roads the site is highly visible, and from the public rights of way, subject to landform and intervening vegetation, further views are possible.

At pre-application stage, concern was expressed regarding the size and design of the building and there has been significant discussion with the applicant regarding design and scale in the months prior to the submission of this current application. The proposed building would have a low profile roof design, and cladding to the front and side elevations. As such, the building would appear as a modern agricultural building within the landscape. It is considered that this design approach would respect the form of the existing buildings within the site.

The physical height of the building has been a key consideration given the location of the site. At 7m high, the proposed building would not have a significant height in comparison to typical industrial buildings; however the land to the south is at a higher level than the existing works to the north. Therefore, if the existing land level was maintained the building would be highly visible in the surrounding landscape. The applicant would

116 of 213 address this issue, given the sites countryside location, by excavating the site by approximately 3m from 136.00 AOD to 133.00m AOD. This would effectively sink the building into the ground to reduce its visual impact on the landscape. Whilst the excavation would alter the landform of the current agricultural field, with appropriate landscaping and boundary treatment it is considered that the proposal would not adversely impact upon the character of the wider area. The excavation would ensure that the proposed building would be no higher than existing buildings on site, thereby maintaining the dominance of the existing tower on the main office building. The applicant has confirmed that the excavated material, which would be solid chalk, would be transported to G B Foot Ltd at Manor Farm in Monk Sherborne, which is less than a mile to the north of the site, where it would be recycled. This approach is supported by the Councils Landscape Officer.

Whilst the building would have a large footprint, it is considered that the mass of the building would be visually reduced through its design. The building would be visible from the A339 and Ramsdell Road to the north and potentially from some of the surrounding footpaths within the area, however the applicants Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment clearly demonstrates that the impact on the surrounding landscape would be low. The applicant has produced photomontages of the proposed development which aide consideration of this application. The building would be viewed within the context of the existing buildings on site, and the use of the land as a whole would be read as one development. The proposed materials are considered to be sympathetic to those used on existing buildings on site and the low profile roof will help minimise the visual impact.

This application involves a change of use of part of the agricultural field to the south of the site to facilitate this development. In addition to the proposed building, additional hardstanding to form a yard area and additional car parking is proposed. This aspect of the proposal would largely be screened from view by the existing buildings and boundary treatment. A condition is recommended to control the stacked height of materials within the yard area to ensure that the higher materials are stored adjacent to existing buildings and to the rear of the site to minimise the impact of the external storage on the rural area. In relation to the proposed improvements to the access and visibility splays, whilst there will be some loss of established hedgerow, a new hedgerow is proposed to be planted and this is considered to be acceptable.

The Landscape Officer has been consulted and has raised no objection to this application. A landscape scheme has been submitted and is considered acceptable, a condition is therefore recommended to secure the planting. In addition, a Landscape Management Plan will be secured via a legal agreement.

In conclusion, it is acknowledged that the proposed building would be prominent within the landscape given the elevated position of the site and the proximity of the site to the AONB. However, whilst the proposal would have an impact on the landscape character and visual amenity of the local area, it needs to be borne in mind that the site has extant planning permission for a large development that would also have an impact on local character. This proposal, whilst larger, allows greater opportunity to secure an appropriate landscaping scheme and to use planning conditions effectively to control the use of external areas. This proposal also avoids the need for an external gantry crane within the yard area. Notwithstanding this, the rear part of the site which forms the current open yard area is relatively unobtrusive in the landscape. It is considered that although the proposed excavation works would change the physical landform, this would not have a discernible visual impact due to the topography of the site and existing boundary vegetation. Whilst the proposed building has been designed to project above the existing showroom element,

117 of 213 due to the need to manoeuvre and store large raw materials, the mass of the building would maintain a visual gap between the workshops and the offices to the west. As such, whilst the proposed extension would be visible from the surrounding landscape and particularly from Ramsdell Road and the A339 to the north, it is considered that the scale and bulk of the proposal would relate to the scale of existing development on site. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Saved Policy E6 of the Local Plan and the Paragraph 109 of the NPPF in this regard. For these reasons, the development would not have a significant or adverse impact on the setting of the adjacent AONB and therefore accords with Paragraph 115 of the NPPF.

The proposal has been designed using materials to match those on the existing buildings, including a brick plinth and timber cladding that would enable the proposed extension to assimilate into its setting and to be viewed in the context of existing development. The southern elevation would be finished in composite cladding, and whilst this material is not prevalent in the locality, this side aspect would be screened by the embankment to the south and the landscaped bank to the rear. The proposed roof is shown to be finished in a light grey whereas a darker colour would be preferred. A condition is recommended to require submission of a material sample panel to ensure a quality finish and colour is used on all materials. With such a condition the proposal is considered to accord with Saved Policy E1 of the Local Plan.

Impact on Biodiversity

A Phase 1 habitat survey has been submitted in support of this application. The survey has not identified any protected species on site and as such the ecological impact of this application is considered to be low.

The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has raised no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions to ensure that the wildlife protection and mitigation measures recommended within the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report are implemented. In addition, a condition is also recommended to require submission of a habitat enhancement scheme given that this proposal presents a number of opportunities to enhance the ecological value of the site.

It is considered that with the imposition of these conditions, the proposal would accord with Paragraph 118 of the NPPF and Saved Policy E7 of the Local Plan.

Impact on Archaeology

The Hampshire County Archaeologist has been consulted on this application and has commented that “the site is located on a stretch of downland that has a considerable number of archaeological sites recorded. Along this ridge crop marks show a number of enclosures which represent Iron Age and Roman farmsteads. These are substantial sites whose trace is revealed through patterns in the growing crop. Although none fall immediately into the area of development where the ridge has been more closely investigated ahead of development (Park Prewett and Marnel Park) these substantial visible sites are also associated with smaller scale earlier prehistoric unenclosed settlement that do not show up as crop marks. It seems likely that this area has been farmed since earliest times and that the archaeological evidence of those communities will be encountered during this development.”

As such, an archaeological condition is recommended to seek to ensure that any archaeological remains encountered during development are recognised and recorded. It

118 of 213 is also recommended that the applicant take further archaeological advice as to how best to address the archaeological recording and this can be suggested by way of an informative.

Sustainability

Saved Policy E1 of the Local Plan aims to ensure that new developments minimise the energy consumed in the construction and future use of a building, as well as the need to conserve and minimise water use. This is a significant issue in respect of this application owing to the nature of the use of the proposed building, and this is an issue that has been addressed in some depth in the applicant’s submission.

In accordance with Appendix 5 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2008 the applicant has submitted a BREEAM pre-assessment which demonstrates that the proposed development would achieve a BREEAM “Very Good” rating through the incorporation of energy efficient design measures and the use of low and zero carbon technologies.

It is therefore considered that subject to a condition to secure that the building is constructed to meet the BREEAM “very good” rating, the proposal accords with the aims of Saved Policy E1(v) of the Local Plan and Appendix 5 of the Design and Sustainability SPD.

Highway Considerations

The site is located on a corner of land between the A339 Kingsclere Road and Wootton Lane. Both are public roads where the national speed limit applies. There are bus stops located close-by on the A339.

The proposed building would be 2210m² and would consist of a workshop (1910m²), offices (135m²) and storage space. This would be added to the existing 1545 m² of workshop and retail area presently on site. There would be no change to the existing showroom/retail space and consequently no change is anticipated towards visitors making trips to the site.

The improved and extended areas would allow for more storage of material, and consequently it is anticipated that fewer material deliveries would be required. The number of goods vehicles delivering is expected to drop from eight to four per week. Additionally, the Highway Officer notes that the intended acquisition of a trailer loading ramp would avoid a mobile crane needing to come to the site to transfer material. This presently occurs 2-3 times per month and therefore there would be an associated reduction in vehicle movements associated with this development. Further, a dock loader would be installed and the additional storage area would accommodate two skips for waste stone.

It is proposed to improve the existing access from Wootton Lane and to provide a second, separate access, for the new workshop and storage yard. 60m visibility splays are proposed on the premise that traffic would not exceed 30mph on the rural lane. The proposed new/second access would lead to a large turning and loading area within the extended storage area sufficient in size for manoeuvring of a 16.5m articulated lorry. Hampshire County Council highways team have been consulted given that alterations are required to the adopted highway.

119 of 213

Additional information was provided to the County Council by the applicant regarding the visibility splays proposed at the new access. The County Highway Officer has also visited the application site and observed that there are low volumes of traffic using the lane and the speeds of traffic are also considered low. As such, HCC raise no objection to the proposed access arrangement. Given the limited scope of the work involved, this can be secured via licence.

Surveys of staff and visitor travel modes have been undertaken to support this application. There are currently 38 employees, 23 of which (61%) drive a car or van to and from work. Others travel as passengers, by bus, motorcycle and bicycle. 24 of the employees arrive and depart in the peak morning and evening periods. A maximum of 7 visitors to the site were recorded on a single day.

It is anticipated that the expansion could result in there being up to six extra employees. If these extra employees were to drive, there would be an extra six vehicle trips in each peak period, equating to a maximum increase change in trips of 10%. However the improvements to the storage and turning areas would result in a decrease in goods vehicle movements of approximately 50%. As such, the Highway Officer raises no objection to the proposed impact of this development on the highway network.

28 parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the new workshop, and the existing parking area would be marked-out to provide a further 28 spaces. The proposal includes 3 disabled-use spaces laid-out adjacent to the showroom. Secure, internal storage would be provided for bicycles.

When measured against the standards, there is an overall maximum parking requirement for 85 spaces. A total of 59 car parking spaces plus 4 light goods vehicle parking spaces are proposed to serve the site. The Highway Officer advises that the proposed parking provision would be sufficient for the specific use of the site and levels of parking demand as described in the submitted Transport Statement, including an allowance for the potential six extra employees.

Consistency in the level of use would be dependent on the continued nature of the business and travel choices made by employees and visitors, as such, it is considered that a Travel Plan would be an important tool in influencing travel choices and a condition is therefore recommended to secure this.

In conclusion, it is considered that the use of the site as part of the established stone masonry business is acceptable in highways terms. However given that a lower parking provision is accepted than would otherwise have been required for a general B2/B8 use in this location, it is considered reasonable to impose a condition restricting the use of the site to a stone masons only.

Planning Obligations

Contributions towards local infrastructure improvements are required to off-set the impact of this development on the local highway network. It has been identified through the Council's 'scoping' process, that contributions are required towards BEST (Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport) and using the Hampshire County Council Transport Contribution Policy B2, this development has been assessed as 6 additional trips onto the highways network. Therefore a financial contribution toward both local transport strategy measures in the vicinity of the site to promote travel by sustainable modes and improvements to mitigate against the cumulative impact of this development within the

120 of 213

A339 north-western corridor, which will include pedestrian bus & cycle infrastructure measures as identified within the HCC preferred list of transport schemes, is being sought. This contribution is in line with the HCC Transport Contributions Policy.

In addition, a Landscape Management Plan is required to cover existing and proposed structural boundary hedgerows that provide an important screening and softening function for the site.

The contribution and Landscape Management Plan are to be secured through a legal agreement which is currently being drafted by the Council’s legal team. The applicant has indicated an acceptance of these obligations and therefore the recommendation is subject to the completion of a suitable deed. With the completed legal agreement, the proposal would accord with Saved Policies C1 and A2 of the Local Plan and the guidance contained within the Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Guidance Document and the relevant national guidance.

Other Matters

There are no neighbouring residential properties in the vicinity of this site and as such the proposal would have no adverse impact on neighbouring amenity.

Given the sensitive location of the site, it is however considered necessary to control the use of external lighting in the interests of preserving the character of the area.

In response to the enforcement concerns raised by Councillor Leek, an enforcement case was investigated in 2009, but this case was closed and no further action was taken after the unauthorised materials were removed from the land. There are no records of any subsequent complaints being raised with the enforcement team. This application is not considered as a part retrospective application, nor is it attempting to regularise any unauthorised use of land, but is proposing a new development and is assessed as such, on its merits and against the planning policy framework.

Conclusions

The site is prominent within the landscape, and the existing buildings are clearly visible from public vantage points. The site is adjacent to an AONB and is considered to be located within a sensitive rural location. It is however considered that the proposed building, storage area and associated car park would be viewed within the context of the existing buildings, forming a part of the established operations at this site. Whilst there would be an impact on the landscape character of the site, weight is given in this instance to the benefits of supporting the sustainable expansion of an established rural business that will contribute to the economic growth of this Borough. Therefore, the impact on the landscape is, in this instance, outweighed by the benefits, and no objection is raised to the principle of an additional building at this site to support the operation of the business, or to the expansion of the employment site.

Conditions

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

Drawing no. 00290-00 Sheet 01 - Proposed Building Plan received 1 July 2013

121 of 213

Drawing no. 00290-01 Sheet 02 - Proposed Building Elevations received 1 July 2013 Drawing no. 00290-01 Sheet 04 - Proposed Roof Plan received 1 July 2013 Drawing no. 00290-00-1 Sheet 05 - Internal Building Layout received 1 July 2013 Drawing no. 00290-00-E Sheet 07 - Site Services received 1 July 2013 Drawing no. 00290-00-E Sheet 08 - Landscaping Details received 1 July 2013 Drawing no. 00290-00 Sheet 10 - Proposed Site Sections received 1 July 2013 Drawing no. 00290-00 Sheet 12 - Proposed Site Elevations received 1 July 2013 Drawing no. 00290-00-E Sheet 13 - Block Plan received 1 July 2013 Drawing no. 00290-00-F Sheet 03 - Proposed Site Plan received 18 July 2013 Drawing no. 00290-00-F Sheet 05 - Site Location Plan received 18 July 2013 Drawing no. 00290-00-G Sheet 06 - Visibility Splays received 8 August 2013 Drawing no. 00290-00-G Sheet 14 - Junction Details received 8 August 2013

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

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

3 Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, no development shall take place on site until details of the method of construction of the means of access, including the layout, geometry, construction, sight lines, signage and drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Hampshire County Council Highway Authority. The approved access details shall be constructed and fully implemented before the commencement of building and other operations on the site. The access shall be retained in accordance with the approved details for the duration of the use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that a satisfactory means of access to the highway is constructed before the approved buildings in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

4 No development shall commence on site until a Construction Traffic Management Plan, to include: details of provision to be made on site for contractor's parking; wheel washing facilities, construction traffic access, the turning of delivery vehicle, storage of construction materials; provisions for removing mud from vehicles; a scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway, particularly during the Monday to Friday AM peak (08.00 to 09.00) and PM peak (16.30 to 18.00) periods; as well as a detailed programme of works; has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the development hereby permitted is commenced and retained throughout the duration of construction period unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

122 of 213

5 No development shall commence on site until details of the types and colours of external materials to be used, together with samples, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

6 No development shall take place within the area indicated on the approved plan until the implementation of a programme of archaeological work has been secured in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Hampshire County Council Archaeologist. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure the recording of any items of archaeological interest in accordance with the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policy E2 and Saved Policy E4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2011.

7 No development shall commence on site until a BREEAM 'Design Stage Assessment' of the development, hereby approved, has been carried out by a licensed BREEAM assessor, and the results of the assessment, including a BREEAM Design Stage Assessment report and 'interim certification' from a BREEAM certification body, submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The 'interim certification' must show that the development is likely to achieve a minimum standard of BREEAM 'very good' rating for the development in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing. REASON: In the interests of sustainable development and to ensure that the development as designed will be constructed to the required environmental standard, in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework, Saved Policy E1 (v) of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and Appendix 5 'Construction Statements' of the 'Design and Sustainability' Supplementary Planning Document.

8 No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until a BREEAM 'Post Construction Stage Assessment' of the development hereby approved, has been carried out by a licensed BREEAM assessor, and the results of the 'Assessment including a final BREEAM 'Post Construction Stage Assessment' report and 'Final Certification' from a BREEAM certification body, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The 'Final Certification' must show that the development has been constructed and completed to achieve a minimum standard of BREEAM 'very good' rating for the development, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing. REASON: In the interests of sustainable development and to ensure that the development is constructed to the required environmental standard, in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework, Saved Policy E1 (v) of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and Appendix 5 'Construction Statements' of the 'Design and Sustainability' Supplementary Planning Document

123 of 213

9 Prior to first occupation of the building and yard area hereby approved, a detailed plan indicating the stacked height of materials to be stored within the external yard area shall be submitted to an approved by the Local Planning Authority. The site shall thereafter be operated in accordance with the details so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

10 The approved landscaping details shown on Drawing no. 00290-00-E Sheet 8 received 1 July 2013 shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation of the building hereby approved. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Saved Policies E1(ii) and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

11 The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until a Habitat Enhancement Scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the scheme so approved, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of preserving, and where possible enhancing, the Biodiversity value of the site, in accordance with Saved Policies E1, E6 and E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

12 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until provision for the turning, loading and unloading of vehicles and the parking of vehicles has been made within the curtilage of the premises in the locations shown on the approved plan and the areas of land so provided shall not be used for any purpose other than the turning, loading and unloading and parking of vehicles, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

13 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details for the secure storage of bicycles within the curtilage of the application site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved storage shall be fully implemented prior to the use hereby approved commencing and the facility so provided shall not be used for any purpose other than the storage of bicycles, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To improve provision for cyclists in accordance with Saved Policy A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

14 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a Travel Plan indicating how it is intended to encourage and implement proposals which will result in a reduction in the need for car borne traffic to/from the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall provide for periodic review, such timescales to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In order to promote sustainable transport in accordance with the advice

124 of 213

contained within NPPF and Saved Policy A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

15 The building and yard areas hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the hard and paved areas have been surfaced in accordance with the details shown on Sheet 03 received 18 July 2013, and shall thereafter be maintained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

16 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no vehicular access other than that shown on the approved plans shall be formed to the site. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

17 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) fences or other means of enclosure at road junctions shall be set back to the sight lines shown on Drawing no. 00290-00-G before the development hereby permitted commences on site and these visibility splays shall thereafter be permanently kept free of obstacles. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

18 All wildlife protection and mitigation measures shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations given in the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report submitted by Oecologic dated 14th Feb 2013 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of preserving the Biodiversity value of the site, in accordance with Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

19 The building and yard area hereby approved shall be used only as a Stone Masons and for no other purpose whatsoever (including any other purpose in Classes B1, B1c, B2 and B8 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended 2005) or in any statutory instrument revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: This use is only permitted and other uses within that Use Class may not be acceptable to the Local Planning Authority in this location and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

20 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no buildings, plant, machinery, structures, walls or fences of any kind shall be erected within the curtilage of the site. REASON: To prevent an overdevelopment of the site in the interests of amenity, in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

125 of 213

21 No flood lighting or external lighting equipment shall be installed within the yard or parking areas, or affixed to any building within the site unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

22 No development shall take place within the area indicated on the approved plan until the implementation of a programme of archaeological work has been secured in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure the recording of any items of archaeological interest in accordance with the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policy E2 and Saved Policy E4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2011.

Informative(s):-

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

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

126 of 213

In this instance:

the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, and was provided with pre-application advice.

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

3. Permission under the Town and Country Planning Acts must not be taken as approval for any works carried out on any footway, including a Public Right of Way, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the publicly maintained highway. The development could involve works within the public highway. It is an offence to commence those works without the permission of the Highway Authority, Hampshire County Council. In the interests of highway safety the development should not commence on-site until permission has been obtained from the Highway Authority authorising any necessary works within the publicly maintained highway. Public Utility apparatus may also be affected by the development. Contact the appropriate public utility service to ensure agreement on any necessary alterations. Advice on this matter can be obtained from Hampshire County Council's Area Office, telephone 0845 8504422, and HCC website.

4. In relation to the discharge of Condition no. 12, the applicant is advised that suggestions of a suitable habitat enhancement scheme for the site are given in the submitted ecological report.

127 of 213

Minor and Other Application

Cttee: 02/10/13 Item No. 4

Application no: BDB/77371 For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address 429 Worting Road, Basingstoke, RG23 8PT Proposal Erection of a detached two bedroom dwelling with detached double garage and associated amenity space following demolition of existing outbuildings

Registered: 7 December 2012 Expiry Date: 7 February 2013 Type of Full Planning Case Officer: Anne Wilkinson Application: Application 01256 845559 Applicant: Mr C Tipper Agent: Mr G Kerr Ward: Buckskin Ward Member(s): Cllr Robert Taylor Cllr Tony Jones

Parish: OS Grid Reference: 459950 151661

Recommendation: The applicant be invited to enter into a legal agreement (in accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2002 and Policies C1, C9 and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011) between the applicant and the Borough and County Councils to secure contributions towards:

 Transport (BEST)  Community Facilities  Playing Fields  Allotments

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

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

Reasons for Approval

1 The proposal is considered to be sustainable development and complies with the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular Para 55. It is considered that there are not any adverse impacts from the development that would so significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework and there aren't any specific policies in the National Planning Policy Framework which would indicate that the development should be restricted. 2. The proposed development preserves the character of the Conservation Area and as such complies with adopted policies in particular the National Planning Policy

128 of 213

Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 3. The proposal would conserve the biodiversity value and nature conservation interests of the site and as such the proposal would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 4. The proposed development would be of an appropriate design and relates to surrounding development in a sympathetic manner and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and Appendix 13 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2008. 5. The proposed development preserves the landscape character and scenic quality of the area and as such is considered to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E6 of the Basingstoke & Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 6. The development would not cause an adverse impact on highway safety and adequate parking would be provided to serve the proposed development and as such the proposal complies with Saved Policy A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 7. The proposed development would not result in an undue loss of privacy or cause undue overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing or noise and disturbance impacts to neighbouring properties and as such complies with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 8. The proposal would respect the environment for trees of high amenity value and as such would comply with the council's Landscape and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document and Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 9. The proposed development respects the character of its surroundings in terms of street pattern, plot size, layout and form and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 10. Through the provision of a Section 106 agreement the development will provide adequate infrastructure to mitigate the impact of the development. The development therefore complies with Saved Policies C1 and C9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011, the Community Infrastructure Levy regulation 2010 and Hampshire County Council 's adopted Transport Contributions Policy (September 2007).

General Comments

This application has been brought before the Development Control Committee rather than being considered under delegated powers in light of previous discussions on a similar proposal at Development Control Committee.

Planning Policy

The site lies outside of the defined Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) in the Adopted Local Plan (ALP), and is therefore considered to lie in the countryside. The site is also within Worting Conservation Area.

129 of 213

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

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

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (Saved Policies)

Policy D5 (Residential and other Development within Settlements) Policy D6 (New Residential Accommodation in the Countryside) Policy D9 (Rural Brownfield Sites) Policy E1 (Development Control) Policy E3 (Areas of Architectural or Historic Interest) Policy E6 (Landscape Character) Policy E7 (Nature Biodiversity/Conservation) Policy A1 (Car Parking) Policy A2 (Encouraging Walking, Cycling and the Use of Public Transport) Policy C1 (Section 106 Agreements) Policy C9 (New Leisure Facilities)

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

Appendix 4 Design and Sustainability SPD (The Historic Environment) Appendix 5 Design and Sustainability SPD (Construction Statements) Appendix 6 Design and Sustainability SPD (Waste and Recycling) Appendix 7 Design and Sustainability SPD (Places to Live) Appendix 14 Design and Sustainability SPD (Countryside Design Summary) Appendix 16 Design and Sustainability SPD (Residential Amenity Design Guidance) Supplementary Planning Document `Basingstoke Environment Strategy for Transport (BEST) Landscape & Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document Worting Conservation Area Appraisal Supplementary Planning Guidance. Residential Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Guidance S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Planning Guidance (July 2005, updated April 2013)

Other material documents

Basingstoke Environment Strategy for Transport The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 PPS5: The Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide BDBC Guidance Note for Developers and Consultants ' Noise assessments and reports for Planning Applications'

Description of Site

The site lies adjacent and to the south of the bungalow at 429 Worting Road. The site is located at the end of a private track which serves 5 residential properties and is accessed off the B3400 Worting Road.

130 of 213

The site is currently physically separated from the residential bungalow by a 2m high fence. The site has a disused swimming pool and pool house and artefacts which relate to the applicants landscape contracting business. There is also a single storey building which the applicant has advised is also used in association with his landscape contracting business.

Proposal

The proposal is for a bungalow. The dwelling would have a maximum height of 5.4m and would be square in plan with a width of 9m and a depth of 9m. The roof of the dwelling would have gable ends with a gable end facing the front of the site. The bungalow would have two bedrooms. In addition a garage is proposed to the front of the site, at the end of the private drive, partially over where an existing outbuilding and garage exist at present. The garage would be a double garage with a ridge height of 4.5m and a gable ended roof.

Consultations

Environmental Health: Noise survey submitted which demonstrates that there is no significant impact from these noise sources although some mitigation is appropriate in the form of acoustically treated passive ventilation, to ensure internal levels meet the desired standards.

Due to the sensitive end use of the land, a contaminated land desk study is also required.

Highways: No objection subject to condition

Policy: Raise objection to the principle of this development as it would result in new residential development in the countryside, contrary to saved Policy D6 of the Local Plan. It will also be necessary to assess the proposal against saved Policies E1, E3, E6 and A1 of the ALP.

Landscape: No objection subject to conditions

Conservation: Objection: Consider that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Worting Conservation Area and fail to comply with Saved Policies E1 or E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, and are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, and the guidance given by Appendix 4 of the Design and Sustainability SPD, "The Historic Environment: Conservation Areas" and to the guidance given by the Worting Conservation Area Appraisal.

Environment Agency: These applications are deemed to either have a low environmental risk

Biodiversity: No objection subject to informative

Trees: No objection subject to condition

Public Observations

None

131 of 213

Relevant Planning History

BDB/19879 Extensions and alterations Granted 11/04/86

BDB/23983 Single storey side extension Refused 10/03/88

BDB/24629 Single storey extension to side (store) Refused 13/07/88

BDB/76703 Erection of a detached three bedroom dwelling with Refused covered parking and associated amenity space, 14/09/12 following demolition of existing single storey outbuildings

BDB/76704 Demolition of existing single storey outbuildings. Refused Erection of a detached three bedroom dwelling with 14/09/12 covered parking and associated amenity space

BDB/77372 Erection of a single storey detached two bedroom Also to be dwelling with detached double garage and associated determined on amenity space following demolition of existing this agenda outbuildings

Assessment

Principle of development

The site lies outside of the defined Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) in the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan (BDBLP), and is therefore considered to lie in the countryside. The site is also within Worting Conservation Area.

Planning Law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the development plan for the area is the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. Since the adoption of the BDBLP the National Planning Policy Guidance has been introduced. The NPPF constitutes guidance, which LPA must have regard to (as advised in Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. In determining planning applications the NPPF advises in Para 14 that:

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

 approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and 132 of 213

 where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out- of-date, granting planning permission unless:

-any adverse impacts of doing so would be significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

- specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.”

The NPPF advises that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental and therefore the development needs to be considered against these dimensions and also whether it would be contrary to specific policies in the framework especially in relation to the sites location in the Worting Conservation Area, the landscape impact and any other material issues.

Further advice regarding implementation is contained within Annexe 1 of the NPPF. For the purposes of decision-taking, Paragraph 211 of the NPPF is clear that the policies within the Local Plan should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of the Framework. Paragraph 212 is clear that the policies within the NPPF are material considerations which Local Planning Authorities should take into account from the day of publication (27 March 2012).

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

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

As the Council are unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing supply position locally it will be necessary to demonstrate that the adverse impacts of approving development would be significant and demonstrable so as to outweigh the benefits of doing so or that specific policies of the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted.

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

133 of 213

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

With respect to criteria (iii) of Policy D6, information submitted with the application advises that the existing use of the site is 'land associated with a private residential curtilage and used as a storage yard associated with the owner’s landscape contracting livelihood'. From the site visit it appears that part of the site has been used incidentally to the existing residential property at 429 Worting Road, as a swimming pool and associated building exists on the site. However as set out in the definition within the NPPF and paragraph 1.61 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, residential curtilages do not constitute previously developed (brownfield) land. The site also has a digger sited on it, along with Herras fencing and a mound of hardcore and other artifacts which would relate to a landscaping business however there is no planning history to indicate such a business use at the site and no evidence has been submitted with the application to show on the balance of probabilities such a use has been in existence on the site continuously for at least the preceeding 10 years.

In this case therefore it is considered that based on the information available the site does not constitute a brownfield site. As such it is considered that the proposal cannot be considered against saved Policy D9 of the BDBLP. With regard to Policy D8 whilst the applicant refers to the proposal providing 'affordable accommodation, this is not in accordance with the definition of affordable housing as set out in the glossary of the NPPF. As such, saved Policy D8 would not apply in this case. As such, the proposal cannot be justified as a rural exception site nor a rural brownfield site.

The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Saved Policy D6 of the BDBLP as it would result in a new dwelling in the countryside which does not meet any of the criteria set out in the policy. Consideration therefore needs to be given as to due weight should be given to Policy D6 of the existing plan according to their degree of consistency with this framework (as per para 215 of the NPPF).

The NPPF and saved policy D6 are protective policies where it relates to new dwellings in the countryside; however the NPPF has a more flexible approach. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF states that: "To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances."

Although the application site is outside any SPB (and is therefore considered to be within the countryside) it is not considered to be in an isolated location. The site is located within the settlement of Worting, adjacent to other dwellings and is approximately 300m from the edge of the settlement of Basingstoke and all the facilities which exist within a large town. In addition the site is considered to be sustainable in terms of its accessibility to these facilities by a choice of alternative means of transport other than the motor car with good accessibility by a choice of transport. Bus services offer opportunities for mode transfer with destinations for retail, employment, health and senior education and present realistic alternatives to the car. In addition it is considered that walking or cycling to local shops or the Leisure Park would be both a feasible and attractive as would cycling to locations such as the railway station, local schools or employment sites would also be feasible.

134 of 213

Therefore having regard to this particular proposal , while it would be contrary to Policy D6, the NPPF is more flexible and while it seeks to avoid new isolated homes in the countryside it does seek to promote sustainable development in rural areas. As already stated it is considered that the proposed dwelling would not in this particular case lie within an isolated location both in terms of closeness to other properties and proximity and accessibility to local services and facilities. It is therefore necessary for further consideration to be given as to whether the proposal would provide sustainable development. The NPPF advises that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental and therefore the development needs to be considered against these dimensions and also whether it would be contrary to specific policies in the framework especially in relation to the sites location in the Worting Conservation Area, the landscape impact and any other material issues.

Impact on the character of the area/ design

The application site is situated within Worting a small village on the B3400 Andover Road, three miles to the west of the centre of Basingstoke. The proposed dwelling would be sited within the small settlement of Worting which mainly comprises of historic buildings, although adjacent and opposite the site are two detached bungalows, both of which were most likely constructed in the latter half of the 20th century. The site is located at the end of a private drive leading from the B3400 and also serving other dwellings. The site lies within the south-western boundary of the Worting Conservation Area with agricultural land to the south of the site which is crossed by a public right of way. Further south are the railway line and recent housing development built off Old Kempshott Lane.

The current proposal is for the demolition of existing outbuildings and the erection of a detached 2 bedroom bungalow with detached double garage, similar to those under the previously refused scheme (BDB/76704). The current proposals however shows a single storey dwelling with a reduced ridge height compared with that previously proposed. The garage also has a reduced ridge height of around 0.75m and now closer to the southern boundary, where the current outbuildings are. A number of outbuildings are also shown to be demolished on the site plan. The swimming pool and pool house are also to be removed as they are in the location of the proposed dwelling.

The site is currently considered to form part of the garden of the existing bungalow at 429 Worting Road, the proposal would involve dividing the site to create an additional plot on the southern part of the site. The village of Worting is mainly formed from dwellings fronting or being side on to the main B3400, with some in depth development such as the cul de sac within which the application site is located. The dwellings within the village sit on various size plots, without there being a predominant layout or size of curtilage. The proposed division of the existing curtilage at 429 Worting Road would leave an adequate size plot for the existing dwelling with ample private garden and parking area. The proposed new plot would be smaller however it would not be dissimilar in area to the curtilage of the bungalow on the opposite side of the cul de sac and larger than others within the vicinity. The proposed dwelling would be orientated with its front wall facing the access track and its rear boundary adjoining the side boundary of 431 Worting Road, as is the existing bungalow at 429 Worting Road. A detached garage to serve the proposed dwelling would be located at the end of the private track in front of the new dwelling, where there is an existing outbuilding which is to be demolished. In terms of its layout and siting the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and in keeping with the existing local context.

135 of 213

With regard to the impact on the surrounding landscape, the Council's Landscape Officer has considered the proposal and advised:

'Having reviewed the proposals, it is not considered that the proposal submitted would have an adverse impact on the wider landscape character of the area, due to the modest size and scale of the dwelling, the removal of other buildings on the site, and in the context of the general development pattern in the area. The proposals have been reduced in height further from the previously refused scheme, which would reduce the scale of the dwelling and garage further. However, as discussed above, the site is situated within a Conservation Area. This has been designated due to particular characteristics and historical interest and as such there could be harm to this designated area as a result of the proposal. I would defer to my colleagues in Conservation on this point.

Visual impacts associated with the development would be limited to views from the public right of way to the south of the site, from which views of the new dwelling would be evident. In these views the dwelling would be seen against existing built form within Worting and Basingstoke beyond. Landscaping is proposed which would soften any close range views of the dwelling, and due to these two factors it is considered that visual impacts would not be adverse."

It is therefore considered that given the sites location within 300mm of the edge of the settlement boundary of Basingstoke and against a built up backdrop of the built form of the settlement of Worting, that in landscape terms the proposed development would be acceptable and comply with saved Policies E1 and E6 of the BDBLP and NPPF.

Consideration also needs to be given to the impact on the Conservation Area. The Council's Conservation Officer has objected to the proposal and has advised:

'I note the advice given by my colleague in relation to the previous, refused, application BDB/76703. The key concern with that application in relation to the conservation area was that of vertical scale and its visibility from the public footpath. Whilst the proposal has been much reduced from the previous, and thus would on paper address these concerns, in doing so this change has introduced a new problem of materials, and still presents the same overly bulky expanse of roof slope that was seen before albeit now at a lower pitch and height. The low pitch of the new proposal's roof would require an interlocking tile, which would present a harmful textural image to the views of the development from the public right of way. Had a steeper pitch been proposed, as before, then a proper clay plain tile could be proposed so partly mitigating its visibility from the footpath.

The key problem here is the very deep planform of the building. If this could be broken up into an L-shaped or T-shaped plan, it would enable a shallower plan-depth, and therefore enable a steep traditionally tiled pitch to the roof, rather than the current very broad expanse of modern interlocking tiling that would result from the current square plan.

Similarly, the largely rendered walling would fail to recognise the dominant use of brick in the area. A high quality facing brick would further improve the broad appearance of the proposal, and whilst it might remain a neutral building in terms of design merit, the use of high quality materials would at least allow it to sit comfortably in terms of longer distance views.'

The Conservation Officers comments are noted and while it is important to seek high quality design and ensure that in Conservation Areas new development preserves or enhances the appearance of the area, part of any such assessment need to take into

136 of 213 consideration the site's context and the existing form of development in the area. In this case there are two detached bungalows immediately adjacent to the application site, one to the north and one to the east on the opposite side of the access track. These bungalows are considered to be of a similar scale, design and using similar materials to proposed bungalow. It is therefore considered that the proposal in terms of its design and appearance would be in keeping with the surrounding area and not look out of place. Conditions requiring the submission of proposed materials and for the landscaping of the site are recommended at the end of this report, as well as a condition removing some permitted development rights given the limited size of the site. As such the proposed dwelling is considered to be acceptable in design terms and would comply with Policies E1 and E3 of the BDBLP and the NPPF. It is considered that on balance the proposal would preserve the appearance of the Conservation Area having regard to the removal of existing buildings (the Conservation Officer has no objection to the demolition of these buildings).

As such the proposal is considered to comply with Saved Policies E1, E3 and E6 of the BDBLP 1996-2011, and the NPPF.

At the same time as considering this application, consideration is being given for an application for Conservation Area Consent (CAC) under the application ref BDB/76704 which seeks to demolish the out buildings on the site and is also for consideration on this agenda.

Impact on neighbouring amenities

There are no adjoining dwellings to the south, where there are fields. To the north lies a bungalow and to the east lies the access track, the other side of which lies a bungalow. To the rear (west) of the site lies the far end of the rear garden of No 431 Worting Road, which is accessed and fronts directly on to the B3400.

The proposed dwelling would be single storey and therefore it is considered that the dwelling would not result in any undue loss of privacy or overlooking. The proposed dwelling is considered to be far enough away from the neighbouring properties to avoid any undue overshadowing or cause any undue loss of light.

Given that the proposal would result in one additional dwelling, and its associated activities and movements, in an existing residential area it is considered that it would not result in any undue impact in terms of noise and disturbance

The proposed garage would be located covering part of the footprint of an existing single storey building and garage. As with the dwelling it is considered that it would not cause any undue loss of amenity to existing neighbouring properties.

Highways and Parking

The site is served from the classified B3400 Andover Road. The B3400 has street lighting and at the site location has a posted speed limit of 30mph. There are footways on both sides of the road. Road markings outline on-street parking areas. The site is considered to be sustainable when measured in terms of accessibility by a choice of alternative means of transport other than the motor car.

137 of 213

The proposed dwelling, which would have two bedrooms and would normally, be expected to provide 2 motor vehicle parking spaces with secure cycle parking for 2 long and 1 short stay places plus refuse/recycling facilities for 2 Nos 240ltr wheelie bins.

The proposed dwelling would have a separate garage structure and a forecourt which would provide adequate parking and turning on-site for cars. The drawings indicate bins to be stored adjacent to the garage. There are no apparent facilities for either the required secure cycle parking nor the provision of refuse/recycling storage and collection points, however scope exists within the curtilage to provide facilities for secure cycle parking and refuse/recycling storage and this could be secured by a suitably worded condition.

Rainwater run-off has been considered and is to be collected on-site for a rainwater harvesting system. This is considered to be acceptable.

The Highway Officer has advised that the geometry of the access is marginally below current standards but is presently in multiple uses by the five residences. Due to the marked, on-street parking zone the give-way point tends to be further forward in the crossover so that the boundaries do not impact upon visibility. With regard to the increased use of the access and drive which would be generated by an additional dwelling, the Highway Officer has advised that 'The shared access and driveway are established and lawfully serve the traffic and access demands associated with five residences. The traffic from one additional residence could typically increase traffic by seven movements per day with one or two movements in the morning peak hour. This change would not be so severe to support an argument for objection. Therefore an additional dwelling can be accepted.'

There are therefore no objections to the proposal in highway grounds subject to conditions and the proposal is considered to comply with Saved Policies E1, A1 and A2 of the BDBLP.

Trees

The Council's Tree Officer has advised that the development is far enough from the chestnut tree, on the other side of the track, not to be an issue. The large spruce, along the southern boundary, is likely to require removal, however this is a poor quality tree and is not of sufficient merit to be a constraint to the development.

A condition relating to the need for a tree protection method statement has been recommended and this would demonstrate ultimately which trees are to be felled and to provide protection for retained trees during the development which would help to inform a soft landscape scheme for the site.

Biodiversity

The site has a mix match of outbuildings with roofing tiles that surround a swimming pool and appear to be in a condition that may provide roosting habitat for protected species namely bats. The outbuildings back onto a dense hedgerow of laurel, fruit trees and a dense thicket of blackthorn which acts as a boundary between the site and open rural fields which are a good habitat for foraging and commuting bats.

A bat survey report has been submitted with the application and concludes that there is no evidence of bats being present. The Council's Biodiversity Officer therefore has advised that there is no objection to the proposals, however that an informative should be attached

138 of 213 if permission is granted because although the risk of bats being affected is considered to be low, the applicant is advised that this remains a possibility.

Noise

Planning application BDB76703 included a reason for refusal relating to the insufficient information having been submitted to enable an assessment on the impact of any noise at the site (in particular that arising from the railway) and any adverse effect there might be on future occupiers.

The current application has been supported by a noise assessment to determine what impact there might be from the railway and the road to the south and north of the plot respectively. This has demonstrated that there is no significant impact from these noise sources although some mitigation is appropriate in the form of acoustically treated passive ventilation, to ensure internal levels meet the desired standards. As such the proposal is considered to comply with Saved Policy E1 of the BDBLP and the NPPF (Paragraph 109 and 118)

The Council's Environmental Health Officer therefore has no objection to the planning application subject to the suitably worded condition to ensure the submission of a scheme for protecting the proposed dwellings from noise from road and railway line.

Other matters

The Council Environmental Health Officer has advised that due to the sensitive end use of the land, a contaminated land desk study is required. A suitably worded condition has therefore been recommended requiring details of measure to be taken to establish whether contamination is present and possible mitigation measure are considered reasonable and will be recommended.

Section 106 agreement

The level of contributions being sought accords with the CIL regulations and advice given in NPPF and Circular 05/05 and meets the following tests: (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

Conclusion

In accordance with Paragraph 14 of the NPPF it is necessary to assess the impact of the proposal in terms of its sustainability. The NPPF defines this as being with regard to Economic, Environmental and Social impacts of the development.

139 of 213

In terms of economic impact, the proposal would have limited opportunities for employment, given that the proposal is for a new dwelling. In limited terms the proposal would offer opportunities during the construction phase.

In environmental terms, as advised above in the report, it is considered that the proposal would comply with Saved Policies E1, E3 and E6 and would not have any adverse impact on the character and amenities of the surrounding area, the conservation area, landscape, highway safety or matters of biodiversity. In addition the Council's Environmental Health Officer is satisfied that there is no significant impact from the noise sources on the site.

In terms of social impact the proposal will provide a new dwellinghouse which will allow the accommodation of a new occupier in the area or the relocation of an existing occupier of the area to housing more appropriate to their needs. Occupants of the proposed dwelling would be likely to participate in, or utilise local facilities and social activity and as such it is considered that the proposal could be viewed as socially sustainable.

Therefore while the proposal would be contrary to Saved Policy D6 of the BDBLP, having assessed the proposal against the NPPF, the proposal is considered to be sustainable development. In this particular case it is considered that there are not any adverse impacts from the development that would so significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NNPF taken as a whole and there are not any specific policies in the frame work which would indicate that the development should be restricted. Therefore in line with the NPPF and its presumption in favour of sustainable development the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to the signing of a S106 legal agreement to ensure the required community infrastructure requirements and conditions.

Conditions

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

Location Drawing 1:1250 received on 07/12/2012 Block Plan 1:500 received on 07/12/2012 Floor Plan 1:100 received on 07/12/2012 Cross section A 1:100 received on 07/12/2012 South and East Elevations 1:100 received on 07/12/2012 West and North Elevations 1:100 received on 07/12/2012 Proposed garage drawing 1:100 received on 07/12/2012

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

3 Notwithstanding the details submitted no development shall commence on site until details of the types and colours of external materials to be used, including colour of mortar, together with samples, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter

140 of 213

maintained in accordance with the details so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011.

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification) no building, structure or other alteration permitted by Class A, C and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be erected on the application site without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose. REASON: To prevent the overdevelopment of the site in the interests of the amenity of the area and to safeguard the amenities of the adjoining properties, in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

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

6 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of screen walls/fences/hedges to be erected. The approved screen walls/fences shall be erected before the dwelling hereby approved is first occupied and shall subsequently be maintained. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, details of which shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before replacement occurs REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area and the privacy of the occupiers of adjoining residential in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

7 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping which shall specify species, planting sizes, spacing and numbers of trees/shrubs to be planted (including replacement trees where appropriate). The works approved shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation of the building(s) or when the use hereby permitted is commenced. In addition, a maintenance programme detailing all operations to be carried out in order to allow successful establishment of planting, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences . Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

141 of 213

REASON: To improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Saved Policies E1 (ii) and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

8 No development including site clearance, demolition, ground preparation, temporary access construction/widening, material storage or construction works shall commence on site until a Tree Protection Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development or other operations shall take place other than in complete accordance with the Tree Protection Method Statement, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard trees in the interests of local amenity and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c) a detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases when the site is developed and

142 of 213

proposals for future maintenance and monitoring. Such scheme shall include nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works.

if during any works contamination is encountered which has not been previously identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme, agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure any soil, gas or water contamination on the site is remediated to protect the proposed occupants of the application site and/or adjacent land and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

12 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of condition11(c) that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of condition 11(c) has been implemented fully in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority in advance of implementation). Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority such verification shall comprise;

as built drawings of the implemented scheme;

photographs of the remediation works in progress;

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

Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the scheme approved under condition 11(c), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

13 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 and turning of vehicles of site operatives and visitors (all to be established within one week of the commencement of development); ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv. wheel washing facilities or an explanation why they are not necessary; v. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; vi. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; vii. a scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and

143 of 213

viii. the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway, particularly during the Monday to Friday AM peak (08.00 to 09.00) and PM peak (16.30 to 18.00) periods. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

14 The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until provision for the turning of vehicles and the parking of 2 vehicles and storage for a minimum of 2 bicycles has been made within the curtilage of that property in accordance with the approved drawings and the areas so provided shall not be used for any purpose other than the turning and parking of vehicles and storage of bicycles, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies E1 and A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

15 No development shall commence on site until details of a scheme for the storage (prior to disposal) of refuse, crates and packing cases has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall take not commence until the approved scheme has been fully implemented and the development shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved scheme, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of general amenity and to ensure that no obstruction is caused on the adjoining highway and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

16 No development shall take place on site until a scheme for protecting the proposed dwellings from noise from road and rail noise has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works which form part of the scheme shall be completed before any of the permitted dwellings are occupied and shall be thereafter maintained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that acceptable noise levels within the dwellings and the curtilages of the dwellings are not exceeded in the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

Informative(s):-

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

144 of 213

most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £97 per request or £28 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.

offering a pre-application advice; seeking further information following receipt of the application; considering the imposition of conditions and or the completion of a s.106 legal agreement.

In this instance:

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

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

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

4. The Tree Protection Plan should be drawn up to reflect the current British Standard BS 5837 'Recommendations for Trees in Relation to Construction' 2005 (Sections 7 and 9). Further helpful advice is contained in the council's adopted Landscape and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document (2008).

145 of 213

Minor and Other Application

Cttee: 02/10/13 Item No. 5

Application no: BDB/77372 For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address 429 Worting Road, Basingstoke, RG23 8PT Proposal Demolition of existing single storey outbuildings

Registered: 7 December 2012 Expiry Date: 17 January 2013 Type of Conservation Area Case Officer: Anne Wilkinson Application: Consent 01256 845559 Applicant: Mr C Tipper Agent: Mr G Mr G Kerr Ward: Buckskin Ward Member(s): Cllr Robert Taylor Cllr Tony Jones

Parish: OS Grid Reference: 459950 151661

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

Reasons for Approval

1. The proposed development preserves and/or enhances the character of the Conservation Area and as such complies with adopted policies in particular the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 2. The proposal would conserve the biodiversity value and nature conservation interests of the site and as such the proposal would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

General comments

This application is the Conservation Area consent to be determined together with the planning application BDB/77372 which is also for consideration on this agenda.

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Section 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment Section 12: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment

146 of 213

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies)

Policy E3 (Areas of Architectural or Historic Interest) Policy E7 (Nature Biodiversity/Conservation)

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

The Council's 'Design and Sustainability' Supplementary Planning Document Appendix 4, 'The Historic Environment: Conservation Areas' Worting Conservation Area Appraisal Supplementary Planning Guidance. Landscape and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Other material documents

PPS5: The Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide

Description of Site

The site lies adjacent to a bungalow at 429 Worting Road. The site is located at the end of a private track which serves 5 residential properties and is accessed off the B3400 Worting Road.

Proposal

The proposal is for the conservation area consent (CAC) to demolish the existing single storey outbuildings on the site. The new dwelling requires planning permission and is being considered separately under BDB/77372.

Consultations

Conservation: No objection to the demolition of the existing single storey outbuildings, concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of the site (BDB/77371)

Biodiversity: No objection subject to information

Environment Agency: These applications are deemed to either have a low environmental risk

Trees: No objection subject to condition

Public Observations: None

Relevant Planning History

BDB/19879 Extensions and alterations Granted 11/04/86

147 of 213

BDB/23983 Single storey side extension Refused 10/03/88

BDB/24629 Single storey extension to side (store) Refused 13/07/88

BDB/76703 Erection of a detached three bedroom dwelling with Refused covered parking and associated amenity space, 14/09/12 following demolition of existing single storey outbuildings

BDB/76704 Demolition of existing single storey outbuildings. Refused Erection of a detached three bedroom dwelling with 14/09/12 covered parking and associated amenity space

BDB/77371 Erection of a detached two bedroom dwelling with Also on this detached double garage and associated amenity agenda to be space following demolition of existing outbuildings determined

Assessment

Impact on Conservation Area

As this is an application for Conservation Area Consent the issues relate to the impact of the loss of the building and whether its loss preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area. The issues relating to the proposed new dwelling are considered separately under BDB/77371.

The existing buildings on the site consist of a single storey out building, pool and pool house and are considered to be of little architectural merit and as such their demolition, subject to an appropriately designed replacement scheme, would be considered acceptable in principle. The Conservation Officer has advised that there is no objection to the demolition of the existing single storey outbuildings although there are reservations regarding the proposed replacement development.

The demolition of the building is required as part of a proposal to redevelop the site. The planning application ref: BDB77371 has been submitted to redevelop the site for a single dwelling and carport. Para 3.9 of The Historic Environment: Conservation Areas SPD states ' Where demolition is considered to be acceptable, permission will normally be given only where the contract for carrying out works of redevelopment has been made and planning permission for those works have been granted. Any permission for demolition will be tied to this redevelopment.' In this case the proposed redevelopment is considered to be acceptable and the demolition of the existing outbuildings on site would not adversely impact on the Conservation Area Consent, subject to conditions to ensure that the materials are removed etc. and their loss would not result in unacceptable gaps within a street frontage. Given the nature of the buildings to be removed and their position it is therefore considered that a condition tying the demolition works to the redevelopment is not necessary in this case

Therefore as the loss of the building will not be detrimental to and therefore would preserve the character and appearance of the Worting Conservation Area and therefore the application is considered to comply with Saved Policy E3 and Section 12 of the NPPF.

148 of 213

Biodiversity

A bat survey report has been submitted with the application and concludes that there is no evidence of bats being present. The Council's Biodiversity Officer has advised that there is no objections to the proposals, however that an informative should be attached if permission is granted because although the risk of bats being affected is considered to be low, the applicant is advised that this remains a possibility.

Other matters

As the approval of this Conservation Area Consent does not automatically allow the redevelopment of the site it is necessary to ensure that all materials are removed from the site and the site is filled and levelled to prevent a change in the levels of the site and to ensure that waste is not stored on the site. This can be secured by condition.

The site is within close proximity of a number of residential dwellings and therefore the hours of demolition and site reinstatement need to be controlled to protect their amenity, which can be secured via condition.

The tree officer has commented on the redevelopment scheme, BDB/77371 and has raised no objection subject to a condition requiring a tree protection method statement, which specifies that it should be submitted prior to development including demolition. It therefore seems appropriate to attached it to this application.

Conditions

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority: Location Drawing 1:1250 received on 07/12/2012 Block Plan 1:500 received on 07/12/2012 Existing buildings 1:100 received on 07/12/2012 Floor Plan 1:100 received on 07/12/2012 Cross section A 1:100 received on 07/12/2012 South and East Elevations 1:100 received on 07/12/2012 West and North Elevations 1:100 received on 07/12/2012 Proposed garage drawing 1:100 received on 07/12/2012

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

2 The works to which this Listed Building/Conservation Area Consent relate shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this consent. REASON: To comply with Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51(4) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004) and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented consents. 149 of 213

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

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

5 All materials and spoil that is generated as a result of the implementation of this consent shall be removed from the site. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings and the Conservation Area and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

6 No development including site clearance, demolition, ground preparation, temporary access construction/widening, material storage or construction works shall commence on site until a Tree Protection Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development or other operations shall take place other than in complete accordance with the Tree Protection Method Statement, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard protected/important landscape trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself, in accordance with Saved Policies E1(ii) and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

7 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: the parking and turning of vehicles of site operatives and visitors (all to be established within one week of the commencement of development); loading and unloading of plant and materials; storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; wheel washing facilities or an explanation why they are not necessary; the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; a scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway, particularly during the Monday

150 of 213

to Friday AM peak (08.00 to 09.00) and PM peak (16.30 to 18.00) periods. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

Informative(s):-

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

considering the imposition of conditions and or the completion of a s.106 legal agreement* In this instance: the application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was required.* In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

151 of 213

Minor and Other Application

Cttee: 02/10/13 Item No. 6

Application no: BDB/77809 For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Red Roses, Cross Lane, Ashmansworth, Newbury, RG20 9ST Proposal Erection of a detached 5 no. bedroom dwelling with detached garage following demolition of existing dwelling

Registered: 26 March 2013 Expiry Date: 21 May 2013 Type of Full Planning Case Officer: Laura Callan Application: Application 01256 845244 Applicant: Mr Flawith Agent: Mr Norman Ward: Burghclere, Ward Member(s): Cllr Horace Mitchell Highclere And St Cllr John Izett Mary Bourne Parish: ASHMANSWORTH OS Grid Reference: 441665 157541 CP

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

Reasons for Approval

1. The proposed development respects the character of its surroundings in terms of street pattern, plot size, layout and form and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 2. The proposal would conserve the biodiversity value and nature conservation interests of the site and as such the proposal would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 3. The proposed development preserves and/or enhances the character of the Conservation Area and as such complies with adopted policies in particular the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 4. The proposed development would not result in an undue loss of privacy or cause undue overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing or noise and disturbance impacts to neighbouring properties and as such complies with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 5. The development would not cause an adverse impact on highway safety and adequate parking would be provided to serve the proposed development and as such the proposal complies with Saved Policy A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 6. The proposed development preserves the landscape character and scenic quality of the area and as such is considered to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E6 of the Basingstoke & Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

152 of 213

General comments

The application is brought before the Development Control Committee in accordance with the scheme of delegation due to the number of objections received and the Officer recommendation of approval.

Planning Policy

The site is outside a settlement Policy Boundary and within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Ashmansworth Conservation Area.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Section 7 (Requiring Good Design) Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) Section 11 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment)

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies)

D6 (New Residential Accommodation in the Countryside) E1 (Development Control) E3 (Areas of Historic or Architectural Interest) E6 ( Landscape Character) E7 (Nature/Biodiversity Conservation)

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

Design and Sustainability SPD

Appendix 4 (Conservation Areas) Appendix 6 (Storage and Collection of Waste) Appendix 13 (Extending Your Home and Replacement Dwellings) Appendix 14 (Countryside Design Summary) Appendix 16 (Residential Amenity Design Guidance)

Ashmansworth Conservation Area Appraisal Residential Parking Standards SPD

Description of Site

The application site is located on the south side of Cross Lane, within the countryside and the Ashmansworth Conservation Area. The property is located at the edge of the village, and is the first building on the south side of Cross Lane when approaching from the east. The existing bungalow is a brick and tile building with a half hipped roof, which has a ridge height of 7.2 metres. The property is served by a gravel driveway and parking area and is partially screened along the front boundary by hedging. To the rear of the site is a large grassed area, which is enclosed by post and rail fencing and adjoined by open fields to the south and east. The site adjoins a number of historical buildings to the west, including unlisted Cross Lane Cottage and Knights Cottage, which is a Building of Local Interest

153 of 213

Proposal

The proposed replacement dwelling would be of a hipped roof design with dormer windows and a projecting gable on the front elevation. A single storey element is proposed on the eastern side. The dwelling would have a height to the ridge of 7m and would have a footprint of 16.5m x 13.5m with the single storey extension having a footprint of 3.4m x 8m. The dwelling would be sited 4m from the eastern boundary at its nearest point and 9.5m from the western boundary at its nearest point.

The proposed garage would be sited to the west of the dwelling and would measure 6m x 7.6m with a height of 4.4m to the ridge of the roof. The garage would be set back from the front of the dwelling and would be sited 2m from the western boundary at its nearest point.

Amended plans were received on 1 August 2013 and re-consultation carried out. The amendments comprised of:

 Alterations to dormer windows at first floor level north elevation to include stained glass to oriel window and obscure glazing to the western window at first floor north elevation.

 Removal of one window from the first floor western elevation.

Consultations

Parish Council: No objection to the original plans and no comment received regarding amended plans.

Conservation Officer: No objection subject to conditions.

Biodiversity: No objection subject to informative.

Highways: No objection subject to conditions.

Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions requiring submission of contaminated land reports and conditions to control hours of construction work and hours of deliveries.

Landscape: No objection subject to conditions.

North Wessex Downs AONB Officer: No comment received.

Environment Agency: Low environmental risk and as such no comment.

Southern Water: No comment received.

Public Observations

Five letters of objection to original plans received raising the following concerns:

 Unacceptable overlooking of the patio area of Hallam.  Unacceptable proximity to dwellings, stability, visual amenity, wildlife  Gross overdevelopment of the site.  Two storey glazed aspect in the rear elevation with balcony is not in keeping with 154 of 213

the character of the area.  Unacceptable proportions of glazing in the southern elevation and the dominant gable projection.  Unacceptable overlooking of Cross Lane Cottage as a result of windows at first floor west elevation.  Hedge may be damaged as a result of the proximity of the garage.  Soak away for septic tank runs into cross lane cottage and given the increase in development the soak away should be re-located.  Cross lane cottage is incorrectly represented on the ordnance survey plan and is not up to date as it does not show garage and extensions.  First floor windows facing Hallam should be obscurely glazed.

One letter of support to original plans raising the following:

 Enhances Conservation Area  Significantly improves sight line  Is a sustainable form of development in accordance with NPPF

Comments following re-consultation on amended plans:

Objection from Cross Lane Cottage to the design and glazing in the south facing elevation and requests that the soakaway be re-positioned within the boundary of Red Roses as the increase in occupants is likely to cause problems

Objection from Hallam, whilst the changes are acknowledged the proposed glazing prism, stained glass and oriel window do not go far enough to overcome the concerns of overlooking and loss of privacy. Window serving bedroom 5 should be removed, the stained glass is an inappropriate design solution and detracts from the Conservation Area and the bathroom window should be obscurely glazed and fixed shut.

Relevant Planning History

BDB/77810 Demolition of existing dwelling (CAC) Pending Consideration on this agenda

BDB/76964 Erection of a detached 5no. bedroom Withdrawn 13.11.12 dwelling with detached garage following demolition of existing dwelling BDB/76963 Erection of Detached 5 no. bedroom Withdrawn 13.11.12 dwelling with detached garage following demolition of existing dwelling (conservation area consent) BDB/76155 Application for certificate of lawfulness Withdrawn 19.06.12 for use of land as residential land

BDB/75211 Erection of new single storey double Withdrawn 15.02.12 garage

155 of 213

BDB/75017 Demolition of existing dwelling withdrawn 15.02.12

BDB/75016 Erection of replacement 5no. bedroomed two storey dwelling Withdrawn 15.02.12 following demolition of existing dwelling

BDB/70734 Erection of detached four bedroom Withdrawn 14.07.09 dwelling following demolition of existing

BDB/68135 Erection of two storey front and rear Approved 25.04.08 extension, conversion of roof space to (application no living accommodation with dormer longer extant windows to front and rear. Erection of and cannot be side extension, new chimney and implemented) cladding with timber

Assessment

Principle of development

The site is situated outside of any defined settlement policy boundary within the countryside and also within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

The principle of a replacement dwelling is acceptable subject to criteria (i) of Saved Policy D6 when it is for a one for one replacement which has been continuously occupied and is not the result of a temporary or series of temporary permissions and the building is not derelict or no longer in existence (other than in cases of accidental destruction such as fire).

The dwelling on the site at present is occupied and is not subject to a temporary consent and therefore the replacement is acceptable in principle subject to accordance with other relevant planning policies. Appendix 13 (Extending Your Home and Replacement Dwellings) of the Design and Sustainability SPD also states that replacement dwellings should not significantly alter the siting, scale, setting and character of the dwelling in order to protect the rural character of the area unless an environmental improvement can be demonstrated and this is considered further below.

Impact on the character of the area/conservation area and design

Red Roses is set back from the roadside in a large plot within Ashmansworth Conservation Area. This part of the conservation area is characterised by the ribbon pattern of development with smaller historic properties situated along the west of the main thoroughfare and larger houses in large plots to the east, such as Ashmansworth Manor, Melincourt and Hallam. The general context is one of a distinct quiet and rural character with dwellings set within mature gardens which are well defined by mature hedgerows.

156 of 213

The proposal is to replace the existing dwelling with a new dwelling which would have a larger footprint and would appear as a two storey dwelling with dormers in the roof. It would be sited 2m further east than the existing dwelling and therefore moved away from the shared western boundary with Cross Lane Cottage. A number of planning applications have been received and have been withdrawn following officer concerns regarding the size and design of the proposed dwelling and the overlooking to neighbours. This current proposal has reduced the size of the building, the size of the front dormers, reduced the ridge line of the garage and moved the garage further from the shared boundary with Cross Lane Cottage, from the previously withdrawn scheme of BDB/76963.

Whilst the replacement dwellinghouse would still be considered large, the design of the front elevation would be more in keeping with the character of this part of the streetscene and is an improvement over the previous proposals. Reducing the height of the garage roofline and setting the garage back into the plot appearing clearly detached from the host building, also lessens the impact in views from the street.

Therefore whilst the building is considered large in relation to the plot, overall the proposed dwelling would not result in harm to the character of the Conservation Area or wider area more generally and it is considered that the proposal would have a neutral impact upon this part of the conservation area.

In terms of impact upon the character of the landscape and the AONB, the Council’s Landscape Officer has raised no objection and considers that the proposal would be sympathetic to the area. At present, views are possible from Cross Lane, past the existing dwelling to the countryside beyond, typical of locations at the edge of settlements, allowing an intimate relationship with the neighbouring rural landscape. It is considered that the impact on the visual amenities of the area which would arise from the development would be acceptable subject to adequate landscaping to ensure the satisfactory integration of the development, which would be secured via by conditions as recommended at the end of this report.

The proposed garage has been moved further from the western hedgerow and subject a condition to secure the submission of a method statement demonstrating how the hedge would be protected, the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to landscape features.

As such the proposal is considered to comply with Saved Policies E1, E3 and E6 of the ALP.

Impact on neighbouring amenities

There are no neighbours to the south or east of the site. The nearest neighbour is Cross Lane Cottage to the west. Given the siting of the proposed dwelling 9.5m from the western boundary and given the siting of Cross Lane Cottage and the existing garage at Cross Lane Cottage, the proposed replacement dwelling would not result in overbearing or overshadowing impacts. The proposed garage would be sited 1.5m from the shared boundary however it would be adjacent to the existing garage for Cross Lane Cottage and as such would not result in overbearing or overshadowing impacts. Given the distance to Hallam to the north it would not result in overbearing or overshadowing of this dwelling.

There are no neighbours to the south or east of the site and as such the proposed south and east facing windows would not result in unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy in these directions.

157 of 213

One window is proposed at first floor in the west facing elevation which would serve bedroom 2 and would overlook the amenity area of Cross Lane Cottage. At present the private amenity area is not directly overlooked from such close proximity. There may be some views of the private amenity area from the first floor windows of Knights Cottages, however these are sited at a further distance from the private amenity area (approximately 35m).

There would be a distance of 27m from this west facing window to the windows of Cross Lane Cottage which would be an acceptable window to window distance. The proposed garage would obscure the majority of the views from this window and a condition is recommended that the garage building is built and completed prior to occupation of the new dwelling and that a levels plan showing ground and finished floor levels is submitted for approval to ensure the garage is built at the level proposed to reduce overlooking opportunities. As such, subject to these conditions, the proposed west facing window would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to the private amenity area or to windows of Cross Lane Cottage and would accord with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan.

Three windows are proposed at first floor at the front of the proposed dwelling (north facing elevation). These windows would face towards the rear garden and rear elevation of Hallam. At its nearest point there would be a distance of 37m between the proposed dwellings and Hallam. The proposed central window would serve the gallery/landing and it is proposed that this be stained glass. This window would allow limited overlooking of Hallam given the stained glass and the set back of the gallery landing from the window (2.5m). A condition is recommended that details of the glazing is submitted for approval and that the glazing be permanently retained as proposed.

The western window would serve an en-suite bathroom and a condition is recommended that this be obscurely glazed.

The eastern window at first floor would serve a bedroom and it is proposed to use ‘Prism’ glass in this window, which the applicant has identified to be a type of obscure glazing which allows views in only certain directions depending on the choice of glazing. The applicant states that it does not allow full views of the garden area of Hallam.

Given that this window is the furthest from Hallam and the private amenity/patio area and the distances involved, it is considered that this window would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for Hallam. Whilst the applicant has proposed ‘Prism glass’ it is uncertain as to the level of visibility possible through this glass and given that it is considered that the window would be acceptable with ordinary glazing a condition is not recommended that this type of glazing is used.

The occupier of Hallam has raised significant concerns regarding the loss of privacy to the patio area as a result of the 3 windows at first floor in the front elevation of the dwelling.

The applicant has also put forward a number of supporting documents contending that the proposal would not result in unacceptable overlooking due to the distances involved and the angles of views from the proposed windows. The applicant considers that the proposed distances would accord with Appendix 16 of the Design and Sustainability SPD which advises that back to back window distances are likely to be acceptable with a 20m separation distance, and the distance from the proposed dwelling to the private patio area of Hallam is 37m. The guidance also states that where houses face each other at an

158 of 213 angle of 30 degrees or more, it is less likely that people would be able to see into each other’s homes. The angle between the western first floor window would be within 30 degrees (however this window is proposed to be obscurely glazed), however the angle between the central and eastern window at first floor level to the patio area of Hallam is in excess of 30 degrees.

The distances in Appendix 16 of the SPD are used primarily for new housing and where new dwellings relate to existing situations, the existing privacy of a dwelling or garden must also be of consideration. As such, whilst the proposal would meet with the distance guidance within Appendix 16, the change to the living conditions of the occupiers of Hallam must also be of consideration.

Having taken into consideration the extensive representations made by both the applicant and the occupiers of Hallam it is considered that subject to glazing details to be approved by condition and retained as such, on balance, whilst there would be an increased perception of overlooking as a result of the proposed replacement dwelling, given that the garden area is not entirely private (there are closer views into the garden from Cross Lane) and given the distances and angles of separation, the proposal would be acceptable subject to appropriate conditions and would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to the occupiers of Hallam.

Parking

In accordance with the Residential Parking Standards SPD, the parking requirement at this location for a 5 bedroom dwelling would be 4 car parking spaces and storage for a minimum of 2 bicycles. The Highway Officer has advised that in the interest of highway safety a turning area is required to allow cars to enter and exit in forward gear. The internal dimensions of the proposed garage are sufficient to accommodate 2 cars and 2 bicycles. The area of the plot would have scope to provide access to the garage, parking for a third and fourth car and a turning area. A detailed plan showing arrangements for access and parking and bin storage is required to be submitted as recommended by condition and in accordance with Saved Policy A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan.

Biodiversity

An ecological report was submitted with the application and no evidence of bats were found and the potential for harm to bats or breeding birds would be negligible. An informative is recommended to ensure that should bats be found works stop immediately and Natural England informed and should hedges require removal that this takes place outside the bird nesting season.

Other matters

The neighbour at Cross Lane Cottage has raised concerns regarding the impact of any increase in residents upon the soakaway. Southern Water have not commented on this application and it is considered that soakaways would be controlled by Building Regulations. Should there be issues with location of soakaways on neighbouring land, this must be resolved by the land owners concerned as a civil legal matter.

There are concerns that the red line identifying the application site is not indicative of the residential curtilage of the site and an informative is recommended on the decision notice to advise the applicant of this.

159 of 213

Conditions

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

Drawing no. 013 j received 1 August 2013 Drawing no. 012 j received 1 August 2013 Drawing no. 011j received 1 August 2013

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

3 No development shall commence on site until details of the types and colours of external materials to be used, including colour of mortar, together with samples, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011.

4 The garage hereby approved shall be retained and used solely for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the private dwelling house and shall not be used in connection with any trade, business, profession or commercial enterprise. The garage hereby approved shall not be converted or used for any residential purpose other than as a domestic garage for the parking of vehicles and cycles. REASON: To ensure adequate on site parking provision and to discourage parking on the adjoining highway in the interest of local amenity and highway safety; and in accordance Saved Policies E1 and A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

5 The en-suite window at first floor level on the north facing elevation, shall be glazed with obscured glass and shall be non-opening with the exception of a top hung fan light, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before installation and shall be permanently maintained in that condition, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority REASON: To protect the privacy of the adjoining property and to prevent overlooking, in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

6 No work relating to the construction of the development hereby approved, including works of demolition or preparation prior to operations, or internal painting or fitting out, shall take place before the hours of 0730 nor after 1800 Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays nor on Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the

160 of 213

construction period and in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

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

8 No development shall commence on site until precise details of the proposed glazing in the central oriel window at first floor level in the north facing elevation have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The glazing shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of amenities of neighbouring occupiers and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan.

9 The proposed garage shall be completed prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring dwellings and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Plan 1996-2011.

10 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification) no building, structure or other alteration permitted by Class A, B, C, D, E and F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be erected on the application site without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose. REASON: To prevent the overdevelopment of the site in the interests of the amenity of the area and to safeguard the amenities of the adjoining properties, in accordance with Saved Policies E1, E3 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

11 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement 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 and turning of vehicles of site operatives and visitors (all to be established within one week of the commencement of development); ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv. wheel washing facilities or an explanation why they are not necessary; v. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; vi. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; vii. a scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and

161 of 213

viii. the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

12 Development shall not commence until details for the turning of vehicles and the parking of 4 cars and storage for a minimum of 2 bicycles within the curtilage of that property have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to occupation the parking and turning areas shall be constructed, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved details and those areas shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than parking, loading and unloading of vehicles, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure adequate on-site parking and turning provision for the approved building and to discourage parking on the adjoining highway in the interests of local amenity and highway safety and in accordance with Policies A1 and E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

13 No development shall take place on site until details of a refuse collection point have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The approved details shall be constructed before the first occupation of any of the dwellings affected and shall thereafter be maintained. REASON: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan.

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

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

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

162 of 213

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

15 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of condition 14(c) that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of condition 14(c) has been implemented fully in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority in advance of implementation). Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority such verification shall comprise;

as built drawings of the implemented scheme;

photographs of the remediation works in progress;

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

Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the scheme approved under condition 14(c), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

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

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

163 of 213

18 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of screen walls/fences/hedges to be erected. The approved screen walls/fences shall be erected before the dwelling hereby approved is first occupied and shall subsequently be maintained. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, details of which shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before replacement occurs REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

19 No development including demolition of the existing dwelling or works of preparation shall take place until a method statement detailing how the existing hedge along the western boundary would be protected during the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan.

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

21. No works shall commence on the windows, rooflights and doors hereby approved until full joinery details, at a scale of 1:5, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details must be referenced against the approved plans, and must show the relationship with the surrounding / original fabric and type of finish. The works shall then progress in strict accordance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority before varied on-site. REASON: To preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area, in accordance with guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

Informative(s):-

164 of 213

lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre-commencement conditions have been met. 1.3 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £97 per request or £28 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.

In this instance: the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, was provided with pre-application advice,

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

3. Any hedgerow removal must be undertaken outside the bird nesting season (March to August inclusive) or otherwise inspected by an ecologist for the presence of active nests before removal can proceed, to prevent contravention of wildlife protection legislation. If roosting bat(s) is/are found during construction, all works that could potentially disturb the bat(s) must stop, in order to comply with wildlife protection legislation, and the advice of a licenced bat worker immediately sought. Details of licenced bat workers can be found on the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management's (IEEM) website - http://www.ieem.net/ (from the main page, select 'About IEEM' and then 'Directory').

4. The applicant should note that the red line shown on the approved drawings is not accepted by the Local Planning Authority as the domestic curtilage associated with this property.

165 of 213

Minor and Other Application

Cttee: 02/10/13 Item No. 7

Application no: BDB/77810 For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Red Roses, Cross Lane, Ashmansworth, Newbury, RG20 9ST Proposal Demolition of existing dwelling (Conservation Area Consent)

Registered: 26 March 2013 Expiry Date: 21 May 2013 Type of Conservation Area Case Officer: Laura Callan Application: Consent 01256 845244 Applicant: Mr Flawith Agent: Mr Norman Ward: Burghclere, Ward Member(s): Cllr Horace Mitchell Highclere And St Cllr John Izett Mary Bourne Parish: ASHMANSWORTH OS Grid Reference: 441665 157541 CP

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

Reasons for Approval

1. The proposed development preserves the character of the Conservation Area and as such complies with adopted policies in particular the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

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

General comments

The application is brought before the Development Control Committee as it must be considered in connection with BDB/77809 for the erection of a replacement dwelling at the site which must be determined in accordance with the scheme of delegation due to the number of objections received and the Officer recommendation of approval.

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) Section 11 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment)

166 of 213

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies)

E3 (Areas of Historic or Architectural Interest) E7 (Nature/Biodiversity Conservation)

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

Appendix 4 (Conservation Areas)

Ashmansworth Conservation Area Appraisal

Description of Site

Proposal

The proposal is to demolish and replace the existing dwelling and a full planning application is pending consideration BDB/77809 for a replacement dwelling. The application is recommended for approval.

Consultations

Parish Council: No objection.

Conservation Officer: No objection.

Biodiversity: Ecological report submitted and no evidence of bats found and no objection raised.

Public Observations:

One letter of representation received stating no objection to the demolition.

One letter of objection to the demolition of the dwelling as the dwelling is serviceable as it is.

Relevant Planning History

BDB/77809 Erection of 5 no. bedroom dwelling Pending with detached garage following consideration demolition of existing dwelling

167 of 213

BDB/75211 Erection of new single storey double Withdrawn 15.02.12 garage BDB/75017 Demolition of existing dwelling withdrawn 15.02.12

BDB/75016 Erection of replacement 5no. Withdrawn 15.02.12 bedroomed two storey dwelling following demolition of existing dwelling

BDB/70734 Erection of detached four bedroom Withdrawn 14.07.09 dwelling following demolition of existing

Assessment

Principle of development

Guidance contained within the NPPF notes that in weighing applications that affect directly or in-directly non-designated heritage assets a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale and harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Local planning authorities should consider the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, the important the asset, the greater weight should be given to the assets conservation.

The existing building is a modern building of no particular merit and has a neutral impact upon the character of the conservation area. It is of no heritage significance and there would be no unacceptable impact upon the conservation area as a result of its loss. The demolition is therefore acceptable in principle subject to a suitable alternative proposal being secured.

An application for a replacement dwelling has been assessed under application BDB/77809 and is recommended for approval. As such, should this be granted planning consent the demolition would be acceptable. 168 of 213

Impact upon biodiversity

Whilst the application is for Conservation Area Consent for demolition, Local Planning Authorities have a duty to consider biodiversity implications in the determination of all types of application proposals.

A bat survey has been submitted with the application and concludes that there is no presence of bats. As such there would be no harm to a protected species. An informative is recommended to ensure that should bats be found works stop immediately and Natural England informed and should hedges require removal that this takes place outside the bird nesting season.

Conditions

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

Drawing no. 010 d received 26 March 2013

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

2 The works to which this Conservation Area Consent relate shall be begun before expiration of 3 years from the date of this consent. REASON: To comply with Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (As amended by Section 51 (4) of the planning and Compensation Act 2004) and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented consents. of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

3. No development including demolition of the existing dwelling or works of preparation shall take place until a method statement detailing how the existing hedge along the western boundary would be protected during the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan.

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

5 No deliveries of construction materials or plant and machinery and no removal of any spoil from the site shall take place before the hours of 0730; nor after 1800; Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800; nor after 1300; Saturdays nor on Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

169 of 213

REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

6 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 and turning of vehicles of site operatives and visitors (all to be established within one week of the commencement of development); ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials; . storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; . wheel washing facilities or an explanation why they are not necessary; . the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; vi. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; vii. a scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and viii. the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

Informative(s):-

1. 1.1 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated. 1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre-commencement conditions have been met. 1.3 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £97 per request or £28 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.

170 of 213

In this instance: the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, was provided with pre-application advice,

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

171 of 213

Minor and Other Application

Cttee: 02/10/13 Item No. 8

Application no: 13/00461/FUL For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Steeles Farm Ashmansworth Newbury Hampshire Proposal Erection of an agricultural dwelling

Registered: 3 May 2013 Expiry Date: 21 August 2013 Type of Full Planning Case Officer: Anne Wilkinson Application: Application 01256 845559 Applicant: WF Fisher And Son Agent: Mr F Hodge Ward: Burghclere, Ward Member(s): Cllr Horace Mitchell Highclere And St Cllr John Izett Mary Bourne Parish: ASHMANSWORTH OS Grid Reference: 441427 157058 CP

Recommendation: the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal

1 The applicant has failed to demonstrate an essential need for an additional permanent dwelling for a rural worker at Steeles Farm and as such the Local Planning Authority considers that there is insufficient justification to support the provision of an additional unit of residential accommodation in this location. The proposal therefore fails to accord with Saved Policy D6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and in particular Paragraph 55.

2 Notwithstanding the ‘in principle objection’ to this proposed new dwelling in the countryside, it is considered that the proposed dwelling would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity and landscape character of the area and the local and the wider setting of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is therefore unacceptable in landscape terms. In addition the location of the new dwelling, its separate curtilage and access arrangement would be considered to have an adverse impact on the setting of the historic farmstead and its listed buildings and the wider Ashmansworth Conservation Area as a whole As such the proposal would have a harmful impact on the visual amenities and character of the area and be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policies E1, E2 , E3 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, Appendix 4 of the Sustainability and Design Supplementary Planning Document ' Conservation Areas', Appendix 14 of the Sustainability and Design Supplementary Planning Document ' Countryside Design Summary' and the Historic Environment Supplementary Planning Guidance ' Listed Buildings'.

3 In the absence of any suitable legal agreement, or justification for the absence of a legal agreement, the proposed development does not make adequate provision for infrastructure contributions in relation to community infrastructure requirement to offset the impact of the development. The proposed development is therefore 172 of 213

contrary to Saved Policies C1, C9 and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, the guidance contained within the Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Guidance Document and the Community Infrastructure Levy 2010.

General comments

This application has been brought to the Development Control Committee at the request of Cllr Horace Mitchell and supported by Cllr John Izett for the following reason:

“The proposed dwelling has been substantially modified in response to comments. The application is strongly supported by the community as represented by the parish council, who are very keen to retain this, the only remaining working farmstead based within the village and also the only remaining business. The balance between the asserted harm and the benefits of sustaining a very long standing and traditional farming family and activity in this small hamlet should be considered by members please.”

Planning Policy

The site is located within the countryside and within the North Wessex Down Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Ashmansworth Conservation Area. The existing farmhouse is a Grade II Listed Building.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Core Planning Principles Section 3: Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy Section 4: Promoting Sustainable Transport Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7: Requiring Good Design Section 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment Section 12: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies)

Policy D5 (Residential and other Development within Settlements) Policy D6 (New Residential Accommodation in the Countryside) Policy E1 (Development Control) Policy E2 (Historic Buildings) Policy E3 (Conservation Areas) Policy E6 (Landscape) Policy A1 (Parking)

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

Ashmansworth Conservation Area Appraisal Appendix 4 of the Design and Sustainability SPD 'Conservation Areas' Appendix 14 Design and Sustainability SPD (Countryside Design Summary) Annex A of Planning Policy Statement 7 (Cancelled) Residential Parking Standards SPD The Councils Landscape and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document Landscape Character Assessment SPG

173 of 213

S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Planning Guidance (July 2005,updated April 2010) Historic Environment Supplementary Planning Guidance ' Listed Buildings'.

Other material documents

Basingstoke Environment Strategy for Transport The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010.

Description of Site

The application site largely seems to be located largely within the garden and land to the rear of the farmhouse and it appears from the plan that this would also involve the extension of the residential area further south into the adjacent field. This farmstead consists of a cluster of farm buildings along with the existing farmhouse on the southern edge of Ashmansworth. It is accessed via Church Lane, a narrow country lane which runs along the eastern boundary of the site. The area surrounding the farm is agricultural, with occasional properties along Church Lane. Immediately to the south of the site is a field, which is part of the agricultural field pattern. The vegetation pattern within the site consists of a hedgerow along the eastern boundary, reinforced by an area of garden vegetation beyond it. There is a strong vegetation pattern in the area, consisting mainly of well- established hedgerows along field boundaries and along Church Lane itself. There is also a network of footpaths to the area, some passing relatively closely to the western and southern boundaries of the site, and also to the east.

The site is a grassed area and is bounded by a post and rail fence and has mature hedgerows, in parts around the site. The area is very rural in character. An existing field access which is unmade and simply a gap between a fence line and a hedge line serves the field adjacent to the application site.

The neighbouring property to the south is Thurston Cottage and lies approximately 60m from the application site. On the opposite side of the road is a large detached dwelling known as Burnies House while the existing farmhouse serving Steeles Farm lies to the east.

Proposal

The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a detached agricultural workers dwelling. It is proposed to site the dwelling and its curtilage to the south west (rear) of the existing farmhouse on the site adjacent to an existing field which lies between the application site and Thurston Cottage. The proposed dwelling would be served by a new access which would be created by modifying an existing field access.

The proposed dwelling would set back into the site, further back than the existing farmhouse and approximately 33m from the front, road boundary. A driveway would link the house to the proposed access. The dwelling would be orientated so that the front elevation would face in a south easterly direction towards the road. The dwelling would be of a traditional design and with a low eaves height and dormer windows in the front and rear elevations. Overall the dwelling would have a ridge height of 7.1m. To the rear the catslide roof would slope down to have a lower eaves height of 2.3m. The dwelling would be constructed using plain clay roof tiles and orange/red brickwork.

174 of 213

The dwelling would contain three bedrooms and have an internal floor area of approximately 125m².

Consultations

Parish Council: 'No objection'.

Policy: Comments (summarised) 'The proposal will need to meet the functional and financial tests, which will be subject to the views of the agricultural consultant. An assessment will then need to be made as to whether the number of on-site workers required for the enterprise can be accommodated within the existing dwelling on the site. The supporting statement confirms that the entire Fisher family currently lives in this property and, whilst the family may prefer to have separate accommodation, this does not necessarily demonstrate that an additional dwelling is essential.

If the tests are not met, it is considered that the proposal would constitute an isolated home in the countryside. The presumption in favour of sustainable development (as set out in the NPPF) requires a balanced assessment of whether any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, which must include consideration of the impact of the proposal on the AONB, Conservation Area and setting of the listed building.'

Agricultural Consultant: (Summarised) ‘In conclusion the agricultural consultant has advised that 'taking into account the evidence submitted, it is out opinion that the essential functional need of the enterprise to have an agricultural worker living on site can be fulfilled by the existing farmhouse.'

Highways: No objection subject to conditions

Landscape: Objection due to the proposal having an adverse impact on the landscape character of the area; the AONB and visual amenity of the area.

Conservation Officer: Objection due to the location of the new dwelling and its separate curtilage and access arrangement having an adverse impact on the setting of the historic farmstead and the wider conservation area as a whole.

Environmental Health: No objection subject to contamination and verification conditions.

AONB Officer: No comment.

Public Observations:

None.

Relevant Planning History

BDB/59672 Erection of a four bedroom dwelling for Refused agricultural workers 07/02/2005

BDB/61630 Erection of a four bedroom dwelling for Refused agricultural workers 09/03/2006

175 of 213

BDB/62731 Erection of a replacement agricultural Granted building 23/03/2006

Assessment

Planning History

Two planning applications have previously been submitted (under BDB/59672 and BDB/61630) in 2004 and 2005 respectively, for the erection of a permanent agricultural dwelling at Steeles Farm. Both of these applications were refused, the latter on the grounds that there was insufficient justification or need for an additional agricultural dwelling over and above the existing farmhouse at Steeles Farm and that the proposed dwelling would not be commensurate in size to the functional requirements of the farm.

Since the refusal of the previous application in 2005, the NPPF has come into effect in March 2012.

Principle of development

The site lies outside any designated Settlement Policy Boundary in the Adopted Local Plan (1996 to 2011) and is therefore considered to be located in the open countryside, where the principle of development is generally more restricted. The site also lies within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The saved policies within the Local Plan do not generally support a net gain of residential dwellings within the countryside unless exceptional circumstances exist and therefore national guidance should be considered in the first instance. The NPPF, published on 27 March 2012, sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It should be noted that the NPPF does not change the status of the Development Plan. Planning law still requires that decisions be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does however provide guidance for decision makers in drawing up plans and is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

The NPPF places great emphasis on a presumption in favour of sustainable development and considers that there are three dimensions to achieving sustainable development: economic, environmental and social, which should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependant. For decision making, this means:

 approving development proposals that accord with the development plan; and  where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting planning permission unless:

- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole; or - specific policies in the NPPF indicate that the development should be restricted.

With regard to applications for essential rural workers living accommodation, Paragraph 55 of the NPPF states:

176 of 213

"To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as:

 the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or  where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting."

In assessing this application it is considered that the proposed location of the dwelling would be considered to be isolated and therefore should not be allowed unless there are special circumstances.

Whilst the proposed dwelling would be sited within the existing farm complex and would therefore not be isolated in its immediate physical location, the village of Ashmansworth has limited services, and the distance and restricted accessibility to services in other villages or centres is such that the proposal would be considered to be for an isolated home within the countryside.

Therefore, in accordance with Paragraph 55 of the NPPF it is necessary to establish whether it is essential for the proper functioning of the enterprise for one or more workers to live permanently at or near their place of work i.e. to be readily available at most times to meet the needs of the business. Essential can mean the need for a worker to be on hand day and night to provide essential care at short notice or to deal quickly with emergencies that could cause the loss of products by, for example, the failure of automatic systems.

Whilst Annex A of PPS7 has been deleted it is noted that Inspectors in recent appeal decision have recognised that whilst Annexe A of PPS 7 is no longer national policy it does, amongst other matters, set out a tried and tested methodology for assessing if there was an essential need for an agricultural worker's dwelling on a holding and this view is also shared by this Council. It is consider that the methodology set out in Annex A can still be a material consideration, but no longer on the basis that it is Government policy.

In this case there is already a farmhouse on the agricultural holding and the applicant is seeking consent for an additional dwelling. The applicant states that there is a requirement for 'at least two people to be on site at nearly all times'.

The application has been supported with information to support why it considered that there is an essential need for an additional rural workers dwelling on the enterprise and this information has been considered by an agricultural consultant, appointed by the Council, who has also visited the site and met with the applicant.

The applicant farms a total of 110.48 hectares (273 acres) of which 72.04ha (178 acres) is owned and 38.44 ha (95 acres) is rented in the locality. At present there is one existing dwelling on the site, a 5 bedroom listed property which is adjacent to the existing agricultural buildings and farmyard.

It is understood that the dairy enterprise of 140 Norwegian Red dairy cows and approximately 125 followers is the applicants principle enterprise. Contracting is undertaken during the silage and hay making season. Since the refusal of the planning 177 of 213 application in 2005, it is understood that the enterprise has expanded and that it is the intention to continue to increase the size of the dairy herd.

The enterprise is a family business and members of the Fisher family residing at the farm are employed by the business. Mr and Mrs Fisher (senior) work part time on the farm. Mark Fisher works full time running the dairy herd and milking and Gary Fisher works full time and also under takes some contracting works. A part time herds person is also employed.

In appraising the proposal the agricultural consultant followed the advice in PPS7 Annexe A and in summary concluded that in relation to Functional Need:

'whilst in the interests of animal welfare and site security, it is essential for a worker to reside on site, it is questionable whether requirements detailed in the March 2013 Appraisal requires two workers to reside on site as potentially a worker residing off site could be employed to milk the cows whilst another residing on site could address the demands of calving and other essential needs arising.'

The agricultural consultant has acknowledged that at least two full time employees are required to manage the cattle, however there is no functional requirement or essential need for two workers to reside on the site, one worker residing on the site would fulfil this and therefore the existing arrangements fulfil this need.

Whilst the existing living arrangements may not be the most desirable for the applicant and his family, it is considered that this does not demonstrate that an additional dwelling is essential.

The proposal is therefore considered to be unacceptable in principle and contrary to Saved Policy D6 of the BDBLP and Paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

Impact on the character of the area/ design

The site is located within the North Wessex Downs AONB (AONB), a national designation which seeks to preserve the spatial qualities of the local countryside. Paragraph 115 of the NPPF, states ' Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. '

The site is also located within the Ashmansworth Conservation Area, adjacent to the existing farmstead. This farmstead consists of a cluster of farm buildings along with the residential dwelling on the southern edge of Ashmansworth. It is accessed via Church Lane, a narrow country lane which runs along the eastern boundary of the site. The area surrounding the farm is agricultural, with occasional properties along Church Lane

With regard to the impact on landscape character it is considered that the proposals would have an adverse impact on the landscape character of the site and the wider AONB setting. The proposal involves the extension of the residential area into an adjacent area of agriculture, with a new access to be provided onto Church Lane, which although is small- scale, it is unacceptable in landscape terms due to the landscape sensitivity of the site.

The new access into the site would require the removal of a large section of hedgerow (sight lines have not been indicated on the plan and may require the loss of the hedgerow or part of it) as well as a group of small trees or large shrubs. The hedgerow and trees play

178 of 213 an important part in maintaining the enclosure and verdant character of the country lane and their removal would have an adverse impact on the rural character. Removal of a large area of the garden and replacing grass with hard standing for the driveway and access point would also have an urbanising influence and an adverse impact on the verdant character of the site.

Whilst there is no design objection to the size and scale of the proposed dwelling the location of the dwelling does not positively relate to the position of either the farm and its farmstead or the adjacent Thurston Cottage, which are both sited closer to the lane. The location of the proposed dwellinghouse and associated separate access would sit to the west, and detached from, the host building and the historic courtyard. In this position the new build would be considered a stand-alone unit within a parcel of land that would contribute little to the historic character of the existing farmstead as a whole whereby it is important that any new building should sit comfortably within the wider cohesive grouping.

In addition it is considered that the increase in built form and hard standing on the site would have an adverse impact on the verdant and rural views into the garden of the farmhouse that are currently afforded from several footpaths and the lane to the east. This increase in built form and hard standing would neither maintain nor enhance these views and are therefore unacceptable in visual amenity terms.

It is therefore considered that the proposal would be unacceptable in term of its impact on the visual impact and character of the site and surrounding area which lies within the North Wessex Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Ashmansworth Conservation Area. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be contrary to Saved Policies E1, E2, E3 and E6 of the BDBLP and the NPPF.

Impact on neighbouring amenities

The application site is adjacent to the existing farmhouse at Steeles Farm , which lies to the north east. At their nearest point the two dwellings would be 13m from one another. The proposed front elevation of the proposed dwelling will have views over the rear garden of the existing farmhouse at Steeles Farm, however the relationship and distances are considered to be acceptable and it is considered that it would not give rise to any undue loss of residential amenities to either the existing farmhouse of the proposed new dwelling.

On the opposite side of the road there is a detached dwelling known as Burnies House. Immediately adjoining the south west boundary of the application site is a field and the other side of this field there is a detached cottage known as Thurston Cottage. Given the distance between the proposed dwelling and these adjoining dwellings, which would be in excess of 35 metres, it is considered that the proposal would not have any undue impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers.

Highways and Parking

The site is currently served from Church Lane, which is classified, C193. The National Speed Limit applies. There are no footways or street lighting.

The proposed access to serve the proposed new dwelling seeks to utilise an existing agricultural access which is unmade and simply a gap between a fence line and a hedge line. As existing the hedge has grown to restrict visibility on the north side of the access point. The Highway Officer has not raised any objection to the proposed means of accessing the proposed dwelling however details would be required for the construction of

179 of 213 the access, its drainage and visibility through the use of suitably worded conditions had the proposal have been recommended for approval. In addition it is unclear if the proposed site boundary would be a physical feature - such as a fence which could restrict means of access onto the land adjacent to the application. Again such detail would be required and could be considered via a condition if the proposal was considered to be acceptable.

The site is in a rural location as defined by the Residential Parking Standards SPD wherein a 3 bedroom property is required to provide 3 vehicle parking spaces within the curtilage of the property. It is considered that there is scope to provide parking and turning within the proposed curtilage of the dwelling, although the application as submitted does not detail how this would be provided. Bicycle storage would also be required and this could be provided in a garage or shed. Should the application have been considered acceptable, these requirements could have been secured through the use of suitably worded conditions.

The Highway Officer has therefore not raised any objection to the proposal subject to conditions. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable on highway grounds and saved Policies E1 and A1 of the BDBLP and the NPPF.

Section 106 agreement - need and compliance with statutory tests

Given that the application would result in the net gain of one dwelling, contributions towards local infrastructure and community facility improvements would be required. The level of contributions being sought accords with the CIL regulations and advice given in NPPF and meets the following tests:

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

In addition, it should be noted that as the application involves the provision of a dwelling for an agricultural worker, if the Council were recommending approval of the application, an agricultural tie would be sought through a S106 agreement.

In this instance the drafting of such an agreement has not been progressed following the applicant's agent being advised that the application was going to be recommended for refusal.

Informative(s):-

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

offering a pre-application advice; considering the imposition of conditions and or the completion of a s.106 legal agreement.*

180 of 213

In this instance: the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, was provided with pre-application advice,

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

181 of 213

Minor and Other Application

Cttee: 02/10/13 Item No. 9

Application no: 13/00857/HSE For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address 2 Willow Way Sherfield-on-Loddon Hook Hampshire Proposal Erection of two storey side extension and single storey front extension. Conversion of detached garage to living accommodation. New crossover to provide parking

Registered: 17 June 2013 Expiry Date: 29 July 2013 Type of Householder Case Officer: Gemma Page Application: Permission 01256 845314 Applicant: Mrs D Lanning Agent: Mr Lawrence Nardi Ward: Bramley And Ward Member(s): Cllr Ranil Jayawardena Sherfield Cllr Chris Tomblin

Parish: SHERFIELD ON OS Grid Reference: 467678 158245 LODDON CP

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

Reasons for Approval

1. The proposed developments would be of an appropriate design and relate to surrounding development in a sympathetic manner and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and Appendix 13 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2008. 2. The proposed developments would neither dominate or compete with the host building and as such comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011 and Appendix 13 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document. 3. The development would not cause an adverse impact on highway safety and adequate parking would be provided to serve the proposed development and as such the proposal complies with Saved Policy A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 4. The development would not cause an adverse impact on highway safety and adequate parking would be provided to serve the proposed development and as such the proposal complies with Saved Policy A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

General Comments

This application has been brought before the Development Control Committee due to the number of objections received and the Officer recommendation for approval.

182 of 213

Planning Policy

The site lies within the Sherfield on Loddon Settlement Policy Boundary.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Section 7 (Requiring Good Design)

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies)

Policy E1 (Development Control) Policy A1 (Parking)

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

Extending Your Home and Replacement Dwellings (Appendix 13) of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document Residential Amenity Design Guidance (Appendix 16) of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document Residential Parking Standards

Description of Site

Semi-detached dwelling situated on a corner plot of a cul-de-sac. The property benefits from an existing double garage, which is located to the south west of the plot and is partially located outside of the residential curtilage associated with the main dwelling. Parking to the site is currently achieved through one bay of the existing garage and a vehicle parking space to the front of the garage. The front curtilage of the site is lawn.

The adjoin semi-detached neighbouring property is located to the south east of the host dwelling. Further neighbouring properties lie to the north east, beyond the adjacent highway and further neighbouring properties lie to the north west, beyond an existing shared access.

Proposal

The erection of a two storey side extension measuring 3.0m (width) x 7.1m (depth) x 6.6m (height), the erection of a single storey front extension measuring 5.3m (width) x 0.7m (depth) x 3.1m (height) and the conversion of the existing detached garage to living accommodation, forming a games room, a study and a shower room.

Consultations

Highways Officer: No objection subject to conditions

Public Observations

Thirteen letters of objection raising the following concerns;

 The plans seem to show that the existing fence is to be moved to the outer wall of the garage on the right hand side. This is a public access route which should not allow this movement of the fence line 183 of 213

 Common access will be reduced  Moving the boundary out to the private road would restrict access to other properties  The extensive alterations will alter the symmetry of the road  Proposed development is very large and not in keeping with current home  The extension would not be subservient and look crowded  The single storey front extension would look odd as it would come forward from the rest of the house and can be seen when entering the close  Concern that the garage will be developed into a stand-alone living accommodation  The conversion of the garage represents one off back land development, overdevelopment and out of keeping with the immediate area  The proposed garage conversion would result in intolerable noise levels  The propose garage conversion would set a precedent  The proposal would result in the overloading of the existing sewage pipework in Willow Way  The proposed development will not have adequate parking for the needs of both proposals  The proposed parking will cause additional on road and off road parking in Willow Way  Issues relating to surface water run off  Issues of overlooking from the side window of the extension and garage conversion directly into 3, 4 and 5 Willow Way  The off street parking proposed will restrict parking on the road

Relevant Planning History

BDB/37782 Erection of extension to existing garage, Granted replacement of garage 18/07/95 roof with pitched roof and repositioning of boundary fence Assessment

Impact on the Character of the Area/Design

The proposed two storey side development is considered to be acceptable in scale and design, appearing as a subservient addition to the host dwelling as a result of sympathetic design features such as the set down of the roof of the development from main ridge of the host dwelling, the set back of the development from the front elevation of the host dwelling and the height of the eaves, which reflects the existing eaves height of the host dwelling. As such, it is considered that the proposed two storey development respects the overall proportions of the host dwelling.

Furthermore, the design of the proposed two storey side development incorporates existing features of the host dwelling, such as the gable roof, the pattern of fenestration and the use of sympathetic matching materials , all of which serve to integrate the proposed two storey side development into the character of the host dwelling.

The proposed single storey development is also considered to be acceptable in scale and design, neither dominating nor competing with the form of the host dwelling. Again, the proposed gable roof design, the pattern of fenestration and the use of suitable matching materials of the single storey front development would serve to respect the existing character and appearance of the host dwelling. 184 of 213

As a result of their orientation to the front and side of the host dwelling, the proposed two storey and single storey developments would be highly visible within the existing street scene. Notwithstanding this, given their subservient and proportional nature upon the host dwelling, they would not appear unduly prominent or have a harmful impact on the street scene or character of the area.

The proposal also involves the conversion of the existing detached garage to living accommodation. Having researched this history of the site, it would appear that an extension to the existing garage was granted planning permission under planning permission BDB/37782. It is clear from the Officers site visit that this garage extension has been implemented on site. It is also noted that planning permission BDB/37782 did not restrict the use of the garage solely for the parking of vehicles.

As such, the proposed garage conversion does not constitute development under the definition given by Section 55 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and the fact that this development can therefore be carried out without the benefit of planning permission is a material consideration to this application.

The conversion of the garage would involve the complete removal of the existing garage door and its replacement with fenestration of a similar scale and design to that currently existing on the host dwelling. It is considered that this modest alteration would not have an adverse impact upon the appearance of the host dwelling nor upon the character of the existing street scene.

The supporting plans demonstrate that the accommodation proposed within the garage conversion would comprise of a shower room, games room and study. Given the scale of the garage and its distance from the main dwelling, it is considered reasonable to recommend a condition to ensure that the development remains incidental to the use of the main dwelling.

Impact on Neighbouring Amenities

As a result of its orientation to the north west of the host dwelling, the proposed two storey side development would have no impacts upon the adjoining semi to the south east (1 Willow Way) by way of loss of light, overshadowing or be overbearing in nature.

Similarly, as a result of the existing access drive to the north west of the site, serving properties 3-6 Willow Way and the in considering the depth of the front garden curtilages associated with these neighbouring properties, the proposed two storey side development would not impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of these neighbouring properties by way of loss of light, overshadowing or be overbearing in nature.

As a result of its single storey nature and distance of over 3.5m from the front boundary shared by 1 Willow Way, the proposed front development would have no impacts upon the occupiers of this adjoining semi by way of loss of light, overshadowing or be overbearing in nature.

It is noted that the proposed two storey side development would result in additional first floor windows in the front, side and rear elevations.

With regards to the proposed first floor rear window (to serve a bedroom), whilst it is acknowledged that this additional first floor window could allow for further opportunities of

185 of 213 overlooking into the rear private curtilages associated with 1 Willow Way and 22 Bow Grove, this additional potential for overlooking would not be unacceptable, particularly given the existing windows that also are present at first floor level.

Furthermore, the level of overlooking achieved from this additional window would not be inconsistent with situations considered typical in residential areas, in which the overlooking is restricted to the further end of neighbouring rear curtilage, rather than the more immediate private patio areas of the site. Therefore, it is considered that the views achievable from the proposed first floor window would not be unduly harmed to the private amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent neighbouring properties to an extent that would warrant the refusal of this application.

The first floor window proposed at first floor level in the north west (side) elevation of the proposed development would also serve a bedroom.

The Councils residential amenity guidance as set out in Appendix 16 of the Council's Design and Sustainability SPD advises a minimum window to window distance of 20m between properties in order to ensure an adequate level of privacy for occupiers. In this case, the distance between the proposed north west bedroom window and the windows associated with 3, 4, 5 and 6 Willow Way would be over 20 metres, thereby satisfying the Councils guidance and ensuring no issues in relation to overlooking into the private living areas of these neighbouring properties. As such, it would be considered unreasonable of the Local Planning Authority to restrict this window to be non-opening or installed and maintained with obscure glazing.

The proposed window in the north west elevation of the garage conversion would serve a shower room. Given the intended use of this room, it is considered reasonable to restrict this window to be installed and maintained in obscured glazing and top opening only, in order to protect the amenities of the users of this room in the future.

Parking The host dwelling would remain as a three bedroom property as a result of the proposed two storey side development and as such, the Residential Parking Standard, which requires for the parking of 3 vehicles on the site, remains unchanged.

Notwithstanding this, the site currently only provides for the parking of 2.0 vehicles; one in the garage and one outside of the garage. As such, the vehicle parking currently on the site falls below the standards.

Furthermore, the proposed garage conversion would result in the loss of one of these parking spaces from the site.

In order to address the shortage of parking currently available on the site and to compensate for the loss of the parking space as a result of the conversion of the existing garage, the proposal involves the creation of a cross over from Willow Way and a hard surfaced parking area within the front curtilage of the property.

The Highways Officer is satisfied that the vehicle parking proposed would satisfy the Residential Parking Standards and has no objection to the proposed development, subject to conditions seeking details of method of construction and provision for storage materials during construction.

186 of 213

Other Matters

It is considered that the issues raised by the third parties in relation to the scale and design of the two storey side development, single storey front development and the garage conversion have been addressed in the above report. Similarly, it is considered that issues relating to neighbouring amenity have also been addressed.

Concern has been raised by the third parties regarding the relocation of the boundary fence enclosing the south west/north west as part of the proposed development. The Officer is satisfied that the boundary fence would not be moved as a result of the proposed developments and it should be noted that a separate planning application for a change of use of land into residential land would be required for such a proposal. However, in order to relive the concerns raised by the third parties, it is considered reasonable to recommend an informative to advise the applicant that this approval does not grant permission to relocate the existing boundary fence and that in the event this action is sought, planning permission would be required.

There are several third party objections relating to the loss of available on road parking as a result of the proposed crossover. It should be noted that no person has a sole right to park on a public highway and as such, the Highways Officer has raised no objection in this respect. Furthermore, the applicant can seek permission for a dropped kerb from Hampshire County Council and hard surface their front curtilage to provide a driveway without the benefit of planning permission, under the permitted development rights of the property (subject to criteria relating to permeable materials or provision of a soakaway being met). As such, it would be unreasonable to refuse this application on this basis.

With regards to the capacity of the sewerage system, the property would remain as a three bedroom property with domestic ancillary accommodation which would not impact upon the existing drainage system. Furthermore, the condition recommended by the Highways Officer in relation to the details of the methods of construction of the means of access would include details of drainage for the driveway, which would allow the Local Planning Authority to consider the most appropriate form of mitigation for any surface water runoff.

Conditions

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority: Site Location Plan at 1:1250 received 17 June 2013 Site Layout Plan at 1:500 received 21 August 2013 Drawing Number 2703.01A received 10 July 2013

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

3 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match, in type, colour and texture those on the existing building unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 187 of 213

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

4 The garage conversion hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as 2 Willow Way, Sherfield on Loddon, Hook, Hampshire, RG27 0DU. REASON: The unit of accommodation is not of a satisfactory standard to be occupied separately from the main dwelling, in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

5 No part of the developments shall be occupied until the access and car parking facilities have been provided in accordance with the drawing layout submitted on 21 August 2013 [and hereby attached]. Development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The areas shall not thereafter be used for any purposes other than access, parking and loading and unloading of vehicles, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

6 Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority no development shall take place on site until details of the method of construction of the means of access, including the layout, construction and drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved access details shall be constructed and fully implemented before the commencement of building and other operations on the site is commenced and shall be thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that a satisfactory means of access to the highway is constructed in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

7 Prior to commencement of development the developer shall ensure that there is provision to be made for the storage on site of construction materials. The provision shall be retained and used for the intended purpose for the duration of the construction period and that area shall not be used for any purposes other than the storage of construction materials. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

8 The windows serving a shower room at ground floor level on the north west elevation of the proposed garage conversion shall be top opening only and glazed with obscured glass. Once installed the windows shall be permanently maintained in that condition, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the privacy of the adjoining property and to prevent overlooking, in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

Informative(s):-

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

188 of 213

2. The applicant is advised that this consent does not grant permission for the relocation of the existing south west/north west boundary fence. In the event the applicant seeks to relocated the boundary fence, you are advised to contact the Local Planning Authority for further advice.

3. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and proactive manner:- seeking amendments to the proposed development following receipt of the application, considering the imposition of conditions

In this instance: the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit

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

189 of 213

Minor and Other Application

Cttee: 02/1013 Item No. 10

Application no: 13/00896/FUL For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Burnbrae House Ecchinswell Newbury RG20 4UQ Proposal Erection of a retirement dwelling

Registered: 21 June 2013 Expiry Date: 8 August 2013 Type of Full Planning Case Officer: Nicky M Spink Application: Application 01256 845441 Applicant: Mr & Mrs Ian & Agent: Mr Gavin Boby Lynne McManus Ward: Burghclere, Ward Member(s): Cllr Horace Mitchell Highclere And St Cllr John Izett Mary Bourne Parish: ECCHINSWELL OS Grid Reference: 450030 159359 AND SYDMONTON CP

Recommendation: the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal

1 The proposal is for the erection of a new dwelling within the countryside for which there are no special circumstances. The proposal would not be a sustainable form of development and no justification has been demonstrated for a retirement dwelling as exceptional local need. As such the development would not comply with guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of sustainable development and would be contrary to Saved Policies D6 and C4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011.

2 The proposed development site is within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) where the highest level of protection is afforded to the protection of the landscape. The loss of hedgerow, infilling of an open area, design, scale and form of the dwelling with large roof slope, new access and hardstanding would have an urbanising effect which together with the subdivision of the curtilage would not be sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of this part of the AONB in terms of its physical and visual impact and would have a harmful impact both on the character and quality of this part of the AONB and on the setting and views from the adjacent Ecchinswell Conservation Area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Saved Policies E1, E3 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Plan 1996-2011.

3 In the absence of a completed Legal Agreement to secure community infrastructure contributions required towards the Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport (BEST), community facilities, public open space, playing fields, play areas and recreation, the proposal would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010; Saved Policies C1, C9 and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local 190 of 213

Plan 1996-2011; the Hampshire Highways Transport Contributions Policy (2007); and the Council's Interim Planning Guidance Note 'Section 106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure' (updated April 2013).

General Comments

The application is being brought to Development Control Committee at the request for Councillor Izett for the following reasons:

"The case is not made for determining that the proposed development of a new dwelling in the Village would not be a sustainable form of development and it is disputed that the development would not be sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of this part of the AONB."

The request for call-in is supported by Councillor Mitchell.

Planning Policy

The site lies outside of any Settlement Policy Boundary within the countryside and is within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). It is adjacent to the Ecchinswell Conservation Area.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Section 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes) Section 7 (Requiring good design) Section 11 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment) Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment)

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies)

Policy D6 (New Residential Accommodation in the Countryside) Policy E1 (Development Control) Policy E6 (Landscape Character) Policy E7 (Biodiversity) Policy C1 (S106 Contributions) Policy C4 (Housing for the Elderly and those with Special Needs) Policy A1 (Car Parking) Policy A2 (Encouraging Walking, Cycling and the Use of Public Transport)

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

Appendix 13 of the Design and Sustainability SPD (Residential Amenity) Appendix 5 Design and Sustainability SPD (Construction Statements) Appendix 6 Design and Sustainability SPD (Waste and Recycling) Residential Parking Standards SPD S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Planning Guidance Note (July 2005, updated April 2013) CIL Regulations 2010 Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport Hampshire County Council Transport Contributions Policy

191 of 213

Description of Site

The application site is formed from the western end of the garden of Burnbrae House, a modern detached two storey dwellinghouse set within a substantial curtilage on the south side of Ecchinswell Road. The house forms part of a loose-knit area of development on the edge of Ecchinswell and within the AONB (Ecchinswell Road forms the northern boundary at this point).

There is open countryside to the north and east of the site and several dwellings opposite the siteon the western side of the road, one of which has its private amenity space on the opposite side of the road, adjacent to the application site. Further dwellings are located to the east and south-east (beyond existing fields) and there are agricultural buildings to the east of the site. The existing dwelling is accessed via a private drive on a bend in Ecchinswell Road as it leaves Ecchinswell towards Kingsclere and the site is bordered by mature hedging and in part by post and rail fencing and post and wire fencing between the site and the garden area to Chapel Farm Cottage in thenorth-west corner. Chapel Farm Cottage is a Grade II listed building opposite the application site.

There is further residential development opposite the site at Clere House Farm which has been subject to various applications and permissions for barn conversion to residential use and extensions and alterations. There is a greenhouse and the remains of brick pillars and the foundations of a former structure, including evidence of service connections in the area proposed for the siting of the proposed dwelling.

Proposal

Erection of a new dwellinghouse of up to 3 bedrooms, including carers accommodation and two further bedrooms. The dwelling would have one and half storeys with accommodation within the roofspace. The dwelling would be a maximum height of 7.2 metres to ridge with half hip roof to side and single storey front gable extension to accommodate a garage and garden store. There would be a dormer window and two velux windows to the front (north elevation) and a further two dormer windows and velux to the rear servicing bedroom and bathroom accommodation. The proposal would incorporate the sub division of the plot and the provision of a new access which would be shared by both the existing and proposed dwelling. Parking and turning space for both properties would be provided within the site.

Consultations

Parish Council: "The Cllrs have no objection to the application and feel the altered vehicular access will be an improvement on the existing."

Supplementary comments received on 14/9/13:

"The Cllrs believe the application fits in with the planning policy framework, The Cllrs believe the proposed entrance will be safer than the current one, and The Cllrs believe this application will have no adverse effects on neighbours."

Landscape: Object due to the proposal being contrary to Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Local Plan. Adverse impact on landscape character and visual character.

Highways: No highways objection to the amended plans subject to conditions.

192 of 213

Conservation: Object due to the proposal failing to accord with Saved Policies E1 and E3 and failing to preserve the setting of the Conservation Area.

Forward Planning: Object to the principle of this development as it would result in new residential development in the countryside, contrary to saved Policy D6 of the Local Plan. Additionally, the applicant has not provided evidence to justify the local need for the type of housing on site in accordance with Saved Policy C4 of the ALP.

Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions in respect of contaminated land and hours of construction/construction deliveries.

Public Observations:

None received.

Planning History:

None

Assessment

Principle of development

The site lies outside a designated Settlement Policy Boundary and as such is considered to lie within the countryside. It also falls within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site forms part of the existing curtilage of Burnbrae House.

As set out in the definition within the NPPF and paragraph 1.61 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, residential curtilages do not constitute previously developed (brownfield) land.

The NPPF advises for existing Local Plans:

1. that were adopted in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the NPPF.

2. that were adopted prior to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and following this 12-month period, that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.

The adopted Local Plan was prepared prior to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act and therefore point 2 above has applied since the publication of the NPPF.

193 of 213

Saved Policy D6 permits residential development in the countryside where it: i. is a one-for-one replacement of an existing dwelling; or ii. results from the conversion of an existing building in a sustainable location and where employment, commercial or community use has been considered first; or iii. involves residential development on sites which comply with policies D7, D8 or D9 of the Local Plan.

The proposed development would be for a new retirement dwelling within the countryside, which does not fit within any of the above criteria. As such, it would be contrary to saved Policy D6 of the Local Plan.

There is a need to consider whether the development is sustainable and to consider the social, environmental and economic impacts of the development. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF states that: "To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby."

Paragraph 55 goes on to state that local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances. The site is outside any SPB (and is therefore considered to be within the countryside), and is on the edge of the village of Ecchinswell within a loose knit area of development with fields adjacent on the northern and eastern boundaries Whilst it could not reasonable be described as isolated in that it is on the edge of the cluster of dwellings which make up this part of Ecchinswell it is considered that development of a house in this location would be harmful in terms of its landscape impact and in terms of its impact on the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area.

The proposed development is within the North Wessex Downs AONB the boundary of which runs along the Ecchinswell Road which forms the northern boundary of the site. Saved Policy E6 advises that development in the AONB will be determined in accordance with the policy in PPS7 also having regards to the setting of the AONB. PPS7 has now been superceded by the NPPF where paragraph 115 states that 'Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in ...Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. ' Footnote 9 to paragraph 14 of the NPPF reinforces this by specifically identifying AONB's as areas where development should be restricted as an exception to the general presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in that paragraph. The development would therefore conflict with paragraphs 49, 14 and 115 of the NPPF.

The applicant has indicated that the site has in the past contained a dwelling and there is evidence on site of traces of a former structure in the form of the remains of foundations and services, however this is considered to be so historic a use that it does not alter the status of the land as residential garden land, which, as set out above, does not constitute previously developed (brownfield) land and does not therefore provide any additional justification or support for the proposed dwelling.

The applicant considers that because of the evidence of former building, the application ought to be considered under Policy D9 which relates to Rural Brownfield Sites. They have submitted a range of evidence in support of their contention that the proposal is sustainable. The village of Ecchinswell has a primary school, a pub, a village hall and a church. Further services are provided in Kingsclere, approximately 2 miles away. The

194 of 213 issue of whether or not the village is a sustainable location was considered in detail in the consideration of a recent planning application at 3 White Hill, Ecchinswell, BDB/77700. The three elements of sustainability, social, economic and environmental were considered in detail together with the accessibility and transportation elements but the Planning Committee resolved in that case that the development was not sustainable and would not provide adequate options for travel by public transport or access to local facilities and services and as such would be contrary to Saved Policies D5 and D6 and paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

Policy D9 provides for the development of brownfield sites to alternative uses, including housing in sustainable locations outside of settlement policy boundaries subject to compliance with other policies of the Plan. Given the recent conclusion of the Council in respect of sustainability detailed above, even if the land were considered to be rural brownfield, rather than residential curtilage, the proposal would not meet the provisions of Saved Policy D9.

The agent has referred to the emerging Local Plan and in particular Policy SS6 sub- clauses a) and e) and the definition in the draft Local Plan of 'previously developed land' in support of the proposal. The agent considers that their proposals comply with Policy SS6 and that this policy is more closely in line with the NPPF than the adopted Local Plan which the agent considers to be out of date.

The draft Local Plan was approved by Full Council on 25 July 2013 and is part way through a six week period of public consultation. At this stage, very little material weight can be afforded to this document, in advance of public consultation and a subsequent examination in public. This is expected to take place in Spring 2014. In addition, the plan is clear that proposals will be judged against all relevant policies including those which relate other impacts identified here including landscape impact and historic assets including the impact on conservation areas.

The definition of previously developed land in the NPPF does include land which was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage, but excludes land where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time. Also excluded is land which is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings. In this case, the area in question is within the residential curtilage of Burnbrae House although it is accepted that the property is not within a built-up area but the remains of the structure, the origins or original use of which are not known, are so slight as to not meet the definition as set out in either the NPPF or the draft Local Plan.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development contained within the NPPF endorses the granting of planning permission unless the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or there are specific policies that restrict the development. Notwithstanding the harm identified below in terms of landscape character and the AONB it is also necessary to assess the proposal against saved Policies E1, E3, E6 and A1 of the Local Plan in respect of development control, impact on the Conservation Area or other heritage assets and access and parking issues.

Impact on the character of the area/ design, the setting of the nearby listed buildings and the Ecchinswell Conservation Area.

The proposed dwelling would be a detached property and would be sited within an area where the predominant built form is comprised predominantly of detached dwellings. The proposed dwelling is of a traditional design and would feature a projecting garage element

195 of 213 to the front elevation at ground floor level and rooflights and dormers within the front and rear elevations to serve second floor bedrooms. It is recognised that the predominant views of this part of the Conservation Area are east-west along the roadside and the impact of a new dwelling to the south would not unduly harm the setting of the Conservation Area, provided it was of appropriate size and employ sympathetic materials. What is of concern is the scale and form of the proposed dwelling in which is considered to be excessive and of rambling proportions. The Conservation Officer raises an objection to the proposal. The land rises from the watercourse in Ecchinswell up towards the existing dwelling, Burnbrae House and whilst it would be set behind existing mature hedgerow the dwelling would be visible over the boundary vegetation and also through the gap created by the new proposed access. It would be visible from the Conservation Area opposite and have the effect of infilling the currently open area between the tighter building form just inside the Conservation Area and the loose knit arrangement of dwellings beyond it. It is considered that this would have an impact on the setting of the Conservation Area as viewed from Ecchinswell Road and the land immediately to the south of site and reduce the openness of the views out from the Conservation Area towards Ecchinswell Road and beyond. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Saved Policies E1 and E3 of the Local Plan.

Landscape

The Landscape officer has raised an objection to the development on the grounds that it would extend the built form into the countryside and have an urbanising effect on an area of green open space, which is currently the garden of Burnbrae House. The proposed rear patio and new driveway would be removing areas of green open space and replacing them with hard surfacing, which again would be harmful to the verdant and unspoilt garden area. The proposals would therefore be harmful to landscape character and the wider AONB setting and is therefore contrary to Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Local Plan and the NPPF.

The applicant has pointed out that there is evidence of former structures in the area proposed to be developed however the existing views are of a largely green and undeveloped space, with an existing greenhouse. The development of a dwelling with a footprint of 16m x between 10m - 16m and a height of up to 7.2m would have a materially urbanising effect notwithstanding being set back by some 17m and, combined with the new proposed access, loss of hedgerow, parking and turning areas, result in a harmful visual impact in landscape terms.

Impact on neighbouring amenities

The proposed dwelling would be set back from the road and be sited approximately 17 metres from Ecchinswell Road at its closest point. The relationship with the existing dwelling (Burnbrae House) with a separation distance of 26 metres is considered to be acceptable and subject to appropriate boundary treatment no unacceptable overlooking or other undue impact would arise. The closest property to the north is Chapel Farm Cottage which would be 34 metres to the north on the other side of Ecchinswell Road. The relationship with this dwelling is also considered to be acceptable in terms of overlooking and residential amenity and there is no objection to the development in this regard.

Parking

The existing dwelling on the site has 5 bedrooms and the proposed dwelling would have 3 bedrooms. The site is in a rural location as defined by the Residential Parking Standards

196 of 213

SPD and the amended plans demonstrate that adequate provision can be made for parking and turning to serve both dwellings.

The Highway Officer has been consulted with regard to this application and has raised no objection to the proposal in terms of the access and parking provision, subject to suitably worded conditions.

Section 106 agreement

All planning applications submitted that seek a net increase of one dwelling or more are required to enter into a Section 106 agreement to contribute to community infrastructure (defined as open space, kick-about, play and community facilities) as well as transport improvements, in accordance with Policies C1, C9 and A2 of the Local Plan. In line with the adopted Supplementary Planning Document on `S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure` , a draft Section 106 agreement has been agreed with the applicant which would secure contributions towards BEST, community facilities, open space, playing fields and play areas/recreation. The draft agreement is considered to be acceptable by the councils legal team and agreed in principle. However, in view of the other objections to the development and the recommendation for refusal, a reason for refusal to cover the absence of a completed S106 agreement would be necessary in order that the matter can be satisfactorily resolved if the application proceeds to appeal.

Other matters

The applicant has also referred to a number of other developments in the locality, including Clere House Farm and extensions approved at Lake House and Springhurst. None of these developments relate to the construction of a new dwelling house in the terms of the current application and as such are not considered to be directly comparable to the circumstances of the application now under consideration, or policy considerations which are relevant.

The application has been submitted as a retirement dwelling and has been specifically designed to meet the needs of the existing occupants of Burnbrae House to allow them to remain in the village with which they have longstanding ties. The accommodation includes a ground floor bedroom and en-suite bathroom plus carer's accommodation at first floor level and a further bedroom and bathroom. Saved Policy C4 states that 'Proposals for residential development specifically designed and suitable to type and location to meets the needs of the elderly….will be permitted within the defined settlements'. The proposed development is located within the 'countryside' and therefore not in a defined settlement policy boundary. The 'local need' in this instance is the desire by the applicants to remain living in the village and the shortage of suitable accommodation locally. Whilst the personal circumstances of the applicant are acknowledged there are not considered to be sufficient to overcome the objections to the development both in terms of this policy and the more substantive policy issues detailed above.

Conditions

Informative(s):-

197 of 213 seeking further information following receipt of the application; considering the imposition of conditions and or the completion of a s.106 legal agreement.

In this instance: the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit,

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

198 of 213

Minor and Other Application

Cttee: 02/1013 Item No. 11

Application no: 13/01030/LDEU For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Blacklands Farm Newnham Lane Old Basing Basingstoke Proposal Application for Certificate of Lawfulness for continued siting of mobile home as residential dwelling

Registered: 24 July 2013 Expiry Date: 20 August 2013 Type of Cert of Lawful Case Officer: Suzanne Smith Application: Dev't-extng 01256 845657 use/condition Applicant: Mr T Davis Agent: Ward: Basing Ward Member(s): Cllr Onnalee Cubitt Cllr Sven Godesen Cllr Stephen Marks

Parish: OLD BASING AND OS Grid Reference: 468137 154652 LYCHPIT CP

Recommendation: It is RECOMMENDED that the Certificate of Lawfulness for the continued siting of the mobile home as a residential dwelling be APPROVED.

Reasons for Approval

1. The Applicant's evidence is sufficiently precise and unambiguous and the Council do not hold any contradictory evidence

General comments

The application has been brought to the Development Control Committee because the application site is owned by a Borough Councillor. The council's constitution, (4.1 (1) (2) (a) states that the Head of Resident Services does not have delegation where the 'applicant' is a member of full council. In this case, although the councillor is not the applicant the Head of Resident Services Planning considers it right and appropriate that the application should be determined by the Committee.

Points to note concerning lawful development certificate applications:

- they are not applications for planning permission consequently they are not decided on planning merits

- the onus is solely on the applicant to show on the balance of probabilities with sufficiently clear and unambiguous evidence that the use has continued for 10 years

- ten year use up to the date of the application i.e. October 2002 - October 2012

199 of 213

- any substantial breaks in use would "reset the clock" and start the four or ten year period again

- the use must be continuous but does not need to be daily

- permitted development rights generally allow any land to be used for any purpose for up to 28 days per year

- as such applications must show use beyond 28 days as a minimum

- certificates (when granted) are granted for the use described in the certificate - no conditions can be attached but it is possible to limit the description of use to match the evidence provided.

Description of Site

The site is accessed via a single driveway with fields either side. Various farm buildings surround the land in question.

The site consisted of the mobile home (which could not visibly be seen as dwarf brick wall and wood cladding wrapped around whole unit, extension to front, east side and rear, UPVC windows, roof and chimney) gravelled area to the front (west) and rear garden (east).

External area consisted of rear grassed garden area, wooden garden furniture and gazebo, washing line, lawn mowers together with garden paraphernalia such as wheel barrows etc.

A wood store is attached to the south side of the mobile home containing logs and cutting equipment.

There is a gravelled area to the front, with brick built steps leading to the main front entrance.

The mobile home is entered via the main front door which leads into the first extension (porch), this has a tiled floor and is used for the storage of freezers and filing cabinets.

This leads into the original mobile home which contains an open plan kitchen (with fitted units, worktop, double cooker, dishwasher, fridge) dining area, bathroom and storage room.

A doorway leading from the kitchen to the rear of the unit enters into a large extension which consists of a living room (with wood burning stove, wooden beams, patio doors out to rear garden), and a bedroom.

Officers noted the unit was connected to electricity, water and TV.

Proposal

An application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for continued siting of mobile home as residential dwelling

200 of 213

Consultations

Old Basing and Lychpit Parish Council: No Objection.

Public Observations

None received

Relevant Planning History

None

Summary of Evidence and Material Considerations

The Applicant presented the following with their application as evidence:

1. Statutory Declaration of Trevor Lesley Davis of dwelling edged red on attached plan, Blacklands Farm, Newnham Lane, Old Basing, Basingstoke, Hants, RG24 7AU dated 28th May 2013 states (inter alia):-

 I have lived in dwelling edged red on attached map on Blacklands Farm since August 2003;  This has been my regular place of residence;  The dwelling is a 2 bedroomed property with a garden area;  Beyond the garden is an area where I keep poultry;  There is a container next to the dwelling which is used as a shed, to store household possessions;  Mr S Marks is the landlord of the dwelling and I have paid rent regularly;  Mr S Marks provides electricity, water and empties the drain away cesspit;  There is an electric meter situated in the yard which measures my electric usage;  I have space for parking 4 vehicles in front of the dwelling.

2. Statutory Declaration of Karen Lesley Davis (formerly Brambor) of dwelling edged red on attached plan, Blacklands Farm, Newnham Lane, Old Basing, Basingstoke, Hants, RG24 7AU dated 2nd May 2013 states (inter alia):-

 I have lived in dwelling edged red on attached map on Blacklands Farm since September 2005;  This has been my regular place of residence;  The dwelling is a 2 bedroomed property with a garden area;  Mr S Marks is the landlord of the dwelling and I have paid rent regularly;  Mr S Marks provides electricity, water and empties the drain away cesspit;  I have a garden area which I use for drying my washing and recreation;  I have space for parking in front of the dwelling.

3. Statutory Declaration of Stephen Marks of Blacklands Farm, Newnham Lane, Old Basing, Basingstoke, Hants, RG24 7AU dated 22nd May 2013 states (inter alia):-

 I am the leaseholder of Blacklands Farm, Newnham Lane, Old Basing, Basingstoke, Hants, RG24 7AU;  In August 2003 Mr Trevor Lesley Davis took occupation of the dwelling in the area edged red on the attached map; 201 of 213

 This subsequently became his permanent address;  In September 2005 Ms Brambor now Davis took occupation with Mr T Davis, and this subsequently became their permanent address;  Rent has been paid regularly;  In return I supply water and empty the cesspit;  There is a container that is used as a shed for domestic purposes;  Parking at the front of the dwelling for up to 4 vehicles;  A garden area which includes a washing line;  Beyond the garden an area where poultry are kept.

Attached to all 3 statutory declarations:  Location plan showing land edged red.

4. Collection of annual TV Licences dated 2007 - 2012 addressed to Mrs K Brambor at The Caravan, Blacklands Farm, Newnham Lane, Old Basing, Basingstoke, Hants, RG24 7AU

5. Collection of bank statements dated 2008 - 2012 addressed to Mr T Davis at Blacklands Farm, Newnham Lane, Old Basing, Basingstoke, Hants, RG24 7AU

6. Letter from HMRC addressed to Mr T Davis at Blacklands Farm, Newnham Lane, Old Basing, Basingstoke, Hants, RG24 7AU dated 11th January 2013 states (inter alia):-

 I can confirm the address shown above is the current address held on our records for yourself and has been since 19/06/2007

7. Google Earth aerial image of Blacklands Farm, dated 31st December 1999 which shows what appears to be a mobile home within the area edged red on the attached location plan.

8. Google Earth aerial image of Blacklands Farm, dated 31st December 2005 which shows what appears to be a mobile home and additional structures within the area edged red on the attached location plan.

9. Google Earth aerial image of Blacklands Farm, dated 18th September 2008 which appears to show a larger extended structure in a slightly altered area within the area edged red on the attached location plan.

Site Visit

Officers visited the site on 3rd September 2013 and noted the site notice dated 30th July 2013 had been displayed clearly at the front of the property.

Aerial Photographs

Officers have viewed aerial photography using various on-line facilities.

Get mapping provided an aerial photograph stated as being 1999 - date and 2004-date, the imagery clearly shows the application site and what appears to be a mobile home and green grass/shrub land to the rear.

202 of 213

Google earth aerial imagery dated 1st January 2005 - the imagery clearly shows the application site and what appears to be a mobile home and green grass land to the rear.

Google earth aerial imagery dated 26th April 2008 - the imagery clearly shows the application site and what appears to be the enlarged structure that has encased the original mobile home with grass land to the rear.

Onus of Proof

The onus of proof in a LDC application is firmly on the Applicant. While the LPA should always co-operate with an Applicant seeking information they may hold about the planning status of land, by making records available, they need not go to great lengths to show that the use, operations, or failure to comply with a condition, specified in the application, is or is not lawful. While LPA's are statutorily required to maintain the planning register, this is not a complete record of the planning status of all land in their area. In many cases, the Applicant for a certificate will be best placed to produce information about the present, and any previous, activities taking place on the land, including a copy of any planning permission she may hold. Some information, especially about the history of any unauthorised activity on the land, will be peculiarly within the Applicant's knowledge.

The fact that a LDC may be refused because the onus of proof is not discharged by the Applicant does not preclude the submission of a further application if better evidence is subsequently available. A refusal to issue a LDC is therefore not necessarily conclusive that something is not lawful; it may merely mean that, so far, insufficient evidence has been presented to satisfy the LPA that the use, operation or activity is lawful.

The Courts have held that the relevant test of evidence on such matters is "the balance of probability". As this test will accordingly be applied by the Secretary of State in any appeal against their decision, a LPA should not refuse a certificate because the Applicant has failed to discharge the stricter, criminal burden of proof, namely "beyond reasonable doubt".

Moreover, the Court has held that the Applicant's own evidence does not need to be corroborated by "independent" evidence in order to be accepted. If the LPA have no evidence of their own, or from others, to contradict or otherwise make the Applicant's version of events less than probable, there is no good reason to refuse the application, provided the Applicant's evidence alone is sufficiently precise and unambiguous to justify the grant of a certificate "on the balance of probability". The LPA should proceed on the basis that neither the identity of the Applicant (except to the extent that he or she may or may not be able personally to confirm the accuracy of any claim being made about the history of a parcel of land), nor the planning merits of the operation, use or activity, are relevant to the consideration of the purely legal issues which are involved in determining an application.

Conclusion

The Applicant needs to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the mobile home has been sited and used as a residential dwelling for a continuous period.

Having carried out a site visit it is apparent that the structure on site is somewhat different from the image one would associated with a mobile home, it has been considerably adapted and extended by the owner and now has the appearance of a wooden lodge.

203 of 213

Officers firstly need to consider whether the mobile home is a moveable structure or whether it is a building. This will determine whether the Applicant needs to show a four or ten year continuous use.

1)Mobile home/Building

Legally a mobile home is considered to have the same legal definition as a caravan. S29(1) of The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (as amended) defines a caravan as "any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed, or being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer) and any motor vehicle so designed or adapted, but does not include: (a) any railway rolling stock which is for the time being on rails forming part of a railway station, or (b) any tent..."

This definition has been modified by Section 13(1) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 which deals with twin-unit caravans and provides that: "A structure designed or adapted for human habitation which: a) Is composed of not more than two sections separately constructed and designed to be assembled on a site by means of bolts, clamps or other devices; and b) Is, when assembled, physically capable of being moved by road from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer), shall not be treated as not being (or not having been) a caravan within the meaning of Part 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 by reason only that it cannot lawfully be moved on a highway when assembled."

The key element is mobility. The mobile home must be capable of being moved when assembled from one place to another and cannot be fixed to the ground. Permanent works, such as an extension or large porch, which fix the mobile home to the ground could mean that it no longer comes within the legal definition of a caravan and could as a consequence be treated as a building.

Officers have considered the test of "size, permanence an attachment" as set out in the case of "Skerritts" (Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (No.2) [2000] 2 P.L.R. 102). The Inspector held that the erection of a 40m by 17m by 5m high marquee for an eight month period was the erection of a building.

In addition the case of R (Save Woolley Valley Action Group Ltd) v Bath and North East Somerset Council [2012] EWHC 2161 is noted where moveable poultry units (chicken sheds) were deemed to have a degree of permanence and considered to be buildings.

Ultimately each case will turn on its own facts and will be a matter of fact and degree. If the mobile home remains within the definition of a moveable structure the ten year rule will apply as the stationing of the mobile home and its use as an independent dwelling would constitute a use of the land. Whereas if the mobile home has obtained a sufficient degree of permanence and attachment to the land, together with benefitting from the features you would normally associate with a separate dwelling house i.e. kitchen, bathroom etc. it will be classified as a building with a change of use to a single dwelling and will subsequently be subject to the four year rule.

204 of 213

Officers note the mobile home is connected to utilities however alone these do not necessarily prove permanence. Case law suggests utilities can be disconnected and do not illustrate a degree of permanence.

Officers have considered in this particular case the mobile home has been in situ for approximately ten years and taking aerial images into consideration was extended and adapted somewhere between the years 2005 - 2008. The mobile home has been fixed to the ground by the brick built dwarf walls, the wooden cladding, numerous extensions, brick built steps, and internally has a wood burning stove with associated chimney. When considered as a whole picture (including the connection to utilities) this appears to show the mobile home has obtained a certain degree of permanence and attachment.

Officers also noted the mobile home benefits from features normally associated with a separate dwelling i.e. kitchen, bathroom etc. (as considered in more detail in section 2 below).

Consequently Officers are satisfied the mobile home would constitute a building and therefore be subject to the Applicant showing a continuous use as a self-contained independent dwelling for four years.

2) Residential use for a continuous four year period

The case of Gravesham Borough Council v SSE & O'Brien 1982, refers to the distinctive characteristic of a dwellinghouse being its ability to afford those who use it, the facilities required for day to day private domestic existence.

In this instance it is clear the building is clearly capable of occupation. It contains a kitchen, living and dining area, 1 bedroom, bathroom, storage area and porch. There is sufficient space for parking to the front of the building.

Officers note bank statements dating 2008 onward and the letter from HMRC are addressed to Mr Davis at Blacklands Farm. The TV licences dating 2007 onward are addressed to Mrs Davis at "The Caravan".

Mr Davis has supplied a statutory declaration which states he has resided at the property as his regular place of residence since August 2003. This is supported by the statutory declaration of the landlord Mr Marks to whom he pays rent. Furthermore the statutory declaration of Mrs Davis states she has resided at the property as her regular place of residence since 2005, again this is supported by the landlord Mr Marks.

Officers do not hold any contrary evidence to suggest this is not the case. In addition it was evident at the Officer's site visit the property was being occupied.

Therefore on the balance of probabilities as a matter of fact and degree Officers consider Mr and Mrs Davis have resided at the property for the four years preceding this application.

3) Parking area and garden

The statutory declarations of both Mr and Mrs Davis and Mr Marks reference parking at the front of the property. Particularly both Mr Davis and Mr Marks state space is available for 4 vehicles. Officers note the area to the front of the property is gravelled and would accommodate numerous vehicles.

205 of 213

Limited information has been supplied in respect of the garden area however officers note Mr and Mrs Davis and Mr Marks make reference to a the garden area. Specifically Mrs Davies mentions hanging out the washing and recreation use but no further information is supplied in respect of how the garden has been used and how frequently.

Reviewing the latest aerial images (google earth 2008) it is clear a grassed area is situated to the rear of the property, and vehicles are parked at the front.

Officers would have liked to have been provided with more information concerning the use of the garden area. However officers do accept that it is likely the property would benefit from an area suitable for garden activities and parking. Furthermore the red line area is not considered excessive.

Officers have no contrary evidence to suggest these areas are not being used as claimed and on the balance of probabilities the parking and garden area would be ancillary to the use of the property.

From the evidence submitted, it is the opinion of Officers that the Applicant's evidence is sufficiently precise and unambiguous and has shown on the balance of probabilities, that the mobile home has been used as a residential dwelling for four continuous years

206 of 213

Telecommunications Application

Cttee: 02/10/13 Item No. 12

Application no: 13/01111/FUL For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Telecommunications Station (Vodaphone) Cross Lane Ashmansworth Hampshire Proposal Replacement of existing 2 no. antenna with 2 new antenna located on pole headframe, along with 1 no. 600mm diameter dish and ancillary equipment at approx 14m on the pole. Erection of 2 no. cabinets at ground level

Registered: 26 July 2013 Expiry Date: 21 August 2013 Type of Full Planning Case Officer: Peter Tanner Application: Application 01256 845361 Applicant: Vodafone Ltd Agent: Mr P Hickson Ward: Burghclere, Ward Member(s): Cllr Horace Mitchell Highclere And St Cllr John Izett Mary Bourne Parish: ASHMANSWORTH OS Grid Reference: 442771 157307 CP

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

Reasons for Approval

1. The proposals will provide improved telecommunications infrastructure in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy A4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the Councils Supplementary Planning Guidance on Telecommunications Development.

2. The proposed developments would not harm the landscape character and scenic quality of the area and as such are considered to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E6 of the Basingstoke & Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

3. The proposed developments would be appropriate in terms of siting and design and would relate to surrounding development in a sympathetic manner and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

4. The proposed developments would not result in any undue impacts upon the occupiers of surrounding residential properties and as such complies with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

207 of 213

General Comments

This application has been brought before the Development Control Committee in accordance with the council's Scheme of Delegation which requires telecommunication applications recommend for approval by Officers to be determined by the Development Control Committee.

Planning Policy

The site lies outside of any recognised Settlement Policy Boundary and within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Section 5 (Supporting High Quality Communication Infrastructure).

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies)

Policy A4 (Telecommunications Development) Policy E1 (Development Control). Policy E6 (Landscape Character)

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

The Council's Telecoms Supplementary Planning Guidance (2004).