NOTICE OF MEETING
Meeting: Planning Committee
Date and Time: Wednesday, 25 May 2016 at 7.00 pm
Place: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Fleet
Telephone Enquiries to: Mrs Alison Cottrell, 01252 774131 [email protected] Members:
Joint Chief Executive CIVIC OFFICES, HARLINGTON WAY FLEET, HAMPSHIRE GU51 4AE
AGENDA COPIES OF THIS AGENDA ARE AVAILABLE IN LARGE PRINT AND BRAILLE ON REQUEST
1 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the meeting held on 13 April 2016 to be confirmed and signed as a correct record. Paper A
2 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
3 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
1
4 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To declare disclosable pecuniary, and any other, interests.
5 ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN
6 PLANNING (ENFORCEMENT) SUB COMMITTEE
To appoint members to the Planning (Enforcement) Sub Committee.
7 PLANNING (MAJOR SITES) SUB COMMITTEE
To appoint members to the Planning (Major Sites) Sub Committee.
8 PLANNING COMMITTEE WORKING PARTY
To appoint members to sit on the Planning Committee Working Party.
9 QEB TRANSPORT STEERING GROUP
To appoint Hart District Council Members to the QEB Transport Steering Group.
1. Portfolio Holder for Environment and Technical Services. 2. One District Councillor from Church Crookham East Ward. 3. One District Councillor from Church Crookham West Ward.
10 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
To accept updates via the Addendum and to consider the planning report/schedule from the Head of Regulatory Services as attached. Paper B
Date of Despatch: 17 May 2016
The Human Rights Act 1998 (the Act) has incorporated part of the European Convention on Human Rights into English law. Any recommendation either to take or not to take enforcement action has been assessed to make sure that the decision is compatible with the Act. If there is a potential conflict, this will be highlighted in the individual report on the relevant item.
2 PAPER A
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Date and Time: Wednesday, 13 April 2016
Place: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Fleet
COUNCILLORS
Ambler (Chairman)
Billings, Blewett, Cockarill, Gorys, Morris, Oliver, Southern, Wheale
Officers: Nick Steevens Head of Regulatory Services Emma Whittaker Planning Manager Peter Lee Planning Officer Gary Spencer Shared Legal Services Alison Cottrell Committee Services
80 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the meeting held on 9 March 2016 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.
81 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies had been received from Councillors Radley JE and Woods.
82 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman announced that Item 101 had been withdrawn from the agenda. Following a site visit, Highways were conducting a further review in relation to highways safety at the junction of Mill Lane/Odiham Road. It was felt that there was a solution, but that time is needed to look at how it could be achieved and therefore it would be more appropriate for this item to be brought back before Committee at a later date.
83 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors Gorys and Wheale declared a personal interest in item 104 as they both knew Councillor Kennett.
84 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING (ENFORCEMENT) SUB-COMMITTEE
The minutes of the Planning (Enforcement) Sub-Committee of 7 March 2016 were noted.
PL.157
PAPER A
85 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
The Addendum was circulated and the updated information accepted. The applications set out in the accompanying schedule were considered and decisions made as shown.
The meeting closed at 7.46 pm
PL.158
PAPER A
HART DISTRICT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Decisions / Recommendations - 13 April 2016
Item 101 - 15/00823/FUL Park Farm, Bramshill Road, Heckfield, Hook, Hants RG27 0LD
This item was withdrawn from the agenda at the request of the Head of Regulatory Services.
Item 102 - 16/00282/HOU 6A Ringwood Road, Blackwater, Camberley, Surrey GU17 0EY
Erection of enclosed porch to front door. Replace flat roof with pitched roof to existing ground floor rear elevation. Convert existing integral garage to kitchen extension.
Following a presentation by the Officer, members had no further questions.
RESOLVED - GRANT
CONDITIONS
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
2 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match in type, colour, texture and bond, those on the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual relationship of the new development with the existing building and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.
3 The proposed materials to be used in the construction of the driveway hereby permitted, shall be of a porous material, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual relationship of the new development with the existing building and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.
4 The approved parking facilities for vehicles shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking of motorised vehicles and access shall be maintained at all times to allow them to be used as such.
PL.159
PAPER A
Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate parking to prevent the likelihood of on-street car parking and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan.
5 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Parking Plan, Combined Plan
Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.
INFORMATIVES
1 You may require Building Regulations Consent and we advise that you should contact Building Control on 01252 398715.
2 Consent must be gained from the local highways authority - in this case, Hampshire County Council - for the construction of a lowered kerb.
3 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance: The applicant was advised of the necessary information needed to process the application and, once received, the application was acceptable and no further engagement with the applicant was required.
Item 103 - 16/00155/ADV Frogmore Leisure Centre, Potley Hill Road, Yateley, Hants GU46 6AG
Erection of adverts, the illuminated signage comprises of the "Everyone Active" and Hart District Council logos, with stainless steel letting beneath. The signage will be displayed on the North and East elevations of the building.
Following a presentation by the Officer, members had no further questions.
RESOLVED - GRANT
CONDITIONS
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). 2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and details: Block Plan 2014-268 A-PL-001, Frogmore Leisure Centre Building Signage Application Draft 5 29/1/2015,
Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.
PL.160
PAPER A
3 The illuminated sign hereby consented shall only be illuminated during the hours of the business use of the premises.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and to satisfy policy RUR8 (Countryside) or URB24 (Urban Settlements) of the Hart District Local Plan.
INFORMATIVES
1 You may require Building Regulations Consent and we advise that you should contact Building Control on 01252 398715.
2 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance: The applicant was advised of the necessary information needed to process the application and, once received, the application was acceptable and no further engagement with the applicant was required.
Item 104 - 16/00301/LBC South Warnborough Lodge, Lees Hill, South Warnborough, Hook RG29 1RQ
The proposed works are to the curtilage listed building and hence any, alterations to the building are subject to the same legal planning constraints as the principal listed building. In the context of the works proposed here, whereby replacement of a decayed timber floor with a cementitious solid floor is required, listed building consent approval is considered to be necessary as the works are those of replacement as opposed to repair and in view of the replacement proposal the works consist of significant changes in the detail of the element. As such the proposal is considered to impact upon the historic character of the building and is a material change requiring inclusion within and approval of a listed building consent application.
Members considered:
The procedure for listed building planning consent.
RESOLVED - GRANT
CONDITIONS
1 The works hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three 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).
2 The works hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: Drawing referenced F1 Cross Section Layout Plan dated 09.02.16 Design and Access Statement Heritage Statement.
PL.161
PAPER A
Reason: To ensure that the works to the heritage asset are carried out in accordance with the approved details.
INFORMATIVES
1 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance:
The applicant was advised of any necessary information needed to process the application and, once received, the application was acceptable and no further engagement with the applicant was required.
2 You may require Building Regulations Consent and we advise that you should contact Building Control on 01252 398715.
3 The applicant is advised to make sure that the works hereby approved are carried out with due care and consideration to the amenities of adjacent properties and users of any nearby public highway or other rights of way. It is good practice to ensure that works audible at the boundary of the site are limited to be carried out between 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday, 8am and 12 noon on Saturdays with no working on Sunday and Bank Holidays. The storage of materials and parking of operatives’ vehicles should be normally arranged on site.
Item 105 - 16/00548/FUL HDC Car Park, Victoria Road, Fleet, Hants
Change of use of grass verge for the siting of a storage container.
Members considered:
That the application was for the siting of a temporary storage container. That the doors of the container will open out into the car park. Screening the far end of the container so it would not be unsightly when looking at it from The Views. The type of screening and whether a wooden fence would be appropriate. That if natural screening was used and it was deciduous, it would not be useful as screening for parts of the year. What would happen if Hype renew their contract? Whether to give permanent consent and insert a condition for the removal of the container when the contract ends. That the container is currently sited on car parking spaces. That Councillor Morris had assisted with the moving of equipment at one of the Hype Discos and was aware of how heavy and cumbersome the equipment was. That the application was made for health and safety reasons and not monetary reasons. Hype is a Charity and proactive for the district. Whether modern spray art/creative art could be used to camouflage the container and that cans of paint would not be too expensive. If the spray art route was to be followed, how and whom would monitor/manage this.
PL.162
PAPER A
That a condition be added to the application that the container be painted in a creative fashion with consultation/agreement of the Chairman, Ward Member and Portfolio Holder. That with the addition of a condition as outlined above, it was:
RESOLVED - GRANT
CONDITIONS
1 The container shall be removed from the site by 31st July 2017. The use for ancillary storage purposes shall cease from that day forward and the land shall be restored to its former planted condition.
Reason To protect the amenities of the area and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan
2 The site shall be used for ancillary storage purposes only in connection with Hype Fleet disco at the Harlington Centre.
Reason To prevent the establishment of a separate storage use and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan
3 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans and documents: Location plan, Site plan, and supporting statement.
Reason To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.
4 A scheme be presented to the Council, prior to the positioning of the container, to camouflage it, which shall be approved by the Chair, Cabinet Member for Town and Village Regeneration and Ward Member. The scheme shall include a timetable for implementation. The scheme of camouflage shall be implemented and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the approved details.
Reason To mitigate the visual impact of the Container.
INFORMATIVES
1 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance: The applicant was advised of the necessary information needed to process the application and, once received, the application was acceptable and no further engagement with the applicant was required.
PL.163
HEAD OF REGULATORY SERVICES REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OF 25th May 2016
1. INTRODUCTION This agenda considers planning applications submitted to the Council, as the Local Planning Authority, for determination
2. STATUS OF OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMITTEE'S DECISIONS All information, advice, and recommendations contained in this agenda are understood to be correct at the time of preparation, which is approximately two weeks in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints, some reports may have been prepared before the final date for consultee responses or neighbour comment. Where a recommendation is either altered or substantially amended between preparing the report and the Committee meeting or where additional information has been received, a separate “Planning Addendum” paper will be circulated at the meeting to assist Councillors. This paper will be available to members of the public.
3. THE DEBATE AT THE MEETING The Chairman of the Committee will introduce the item to be discussed. A Planning Officer will then give a short presentation and, if applicable, public speaking will take place (see below). The Committee will then debate the application with the starting point being the officer recommendation.
4. SITE VISITS A Panel of Members visits some sites on the day before the Committee meeting. This can be useful to assess the effect of the proposal on matters that are not clear from the plans or from the report. The Panel does not discuss the application or receive representations although applicants and Town/Parish Councils are advised of the arrangements. These are not public meetings. A summary of what was viewed is given on the Planning Addendum.
5. THE COUNCIL’S APPROACH TO THE DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS When considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
It will always work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. This means that any discussions with applicants and developers at both pre-application and application stage will be positively framed as both parties work together to find solutions to problems. This does not necessarily mean however, that development that is unacceptable in principle or which causes harm to an interest of acknowledged importance, will be allowed.
The Local Plan is the starting point for decision making. Proposals that accord with the Local Plan will be approved without delay. Development that conflicts with the Local Plan will be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision the Council will seek to grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise – taking into account whether: (i) Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Local Plan taken as a whole; or (ii) Specific policies in the Local Pan indicate that development should be restricted. 1
The Council will grant planning permission where it is satisfied that it will achieve a positive outcome that meets a recognised planning purpose.
Unsatisfactory applications will however, be refused without discussion where: (i) The proposal is unacceptable in principle and there are no clear material considerations that indicate otherwise; or (ii) A completely new design would be needed to overcome objections; or (iii) Clear pre-application advice has been given, but the applicant has not followed that advice; or (iv) No pre-application advice has been sought.
6. PLANNING POLICY All planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise If the development plan contains material policies or proposals and there are no other material considerations, the application should be determined in accordance with the development plan. Where there are other material considerations, the development plan will be the starting point, and other material considerations will also be taken into account. One such consideration will be whether the plan policies are relevant and up to date.
The relevant development plans are, the Hart District Local Plan including first alterations, retained Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan the Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton, New Forest National Park Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, and the saved policies of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
Although not necessarily specifically referred to in the Committee report, the relevant development plan will have been used as a background document and the relevant policies taken into account in the preparation of the report on each item.
The Localism Act 2011 also introduced a system of Neighbourhood Plans which are prepared by a local community for its area. These are subject to independent examination and public referendum. Where passed they become part of the development plan for the area concerned.
Emerging plans gather weight as they progress through the varying processes towards adoption, Arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the NPPF and any other material considerations into account. Refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified where a draft Local Plan has yet to be submitted for examination, or in the case of a Neighbourhood Plan, before the end of the local planning authority publicity period.
7. THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK AND PLANNING PRACTICE GUIDANCE Government statements of planning policy are material considerations that must be taken into account in deciding planning applications. These statements cannot make irrelevant any matter that is a material consideration in a particular case. Nevertheless, where such statements indicate the weight that should be given to relevant considerations, decision-makers must have proper regard to them.
The NPPF is a material consideration in determining applications. The NPPF states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development with its economic, social and environmental roles. All three aims should be sought jointly and simultaneously. The presumption in favour of sustainable development in decision making means: (i) approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and (ii) where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: 2 any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.
The NPPF indicates that the policies for the supply of housing land in a local plan will not be considered up to date where the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land.
The Government has also published the Planning Practice Guidance which provides information on a number of topic areas. Again these comments, where applicable, are a material consideration which need to be given due weight.
8. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Material planning considerations must be genuine planning considerations, i.e. they must be related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. The considerations must also fairly and reasonably relate to the application concerned. Much will depend on the nature of the application under consideration, the relevant planning policies and the surrounding circumstances . All the fundamental factors involved in land-use planning constitute a material consideration. This includes such things as the number, size, layout, siting, design and external appearance of buildings and the proposed means of access, together with landscaping, impact on the neighbourhood and the availability of infrastructure. Relevant considerations will vary from circumstance to circumstance and from application to application.
Within or in the settings of Conservation Areas or where development affects a listed building or its setting there are a number of statutory tests that must be given great weight in the decision making process. In no case does this prevent development rather than particular emphasis should be given to the significance of the heritage asset.
The Council will base its decisions on planning applications on planning grounds alone. It will not use its planning powers to secure objectives achievable under non-planning legislation, such as the Building Regulations or the Water Industries Act . The grant of planning permission does not remove the need for any other consents, nor does it imply that such consents will necessarily be forthcoming. However, provided a consideration is material in planning terms, it will be taken into account, notwithstanding the fact that other regulatory machinery may exist.
Matters that should not be taken into account are: loss of property value loss of view land and boundary disputes matters covered by leases or covenants the impact of construction work property maintenance issues need for development (save in certain the identity or personal characteristics of the defined circumstances) applicant ownership of land or rights of way moral objections to development like public houses or betting shops change to previous scheme competition between firms, or matters that are dealt with by other legislation, such as the Building Regulations (e.g. structural safety, fire risks, means of escape in the event of fire etc). - The fact that a development may conflict with other legislation is not a reason to refuse planning permission or defer a decision. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure compliance with all relevant legislation.
The Council will base its decisions on planning applications on planning grounds alone. It will not use its planning powers to secure objectives achievable under non-planning legislation, such as the Building Regulations or the Water Industries Act. The grant of planning permission does not remove the need for any other consents, nor does it imply that such consents will necessarily be forthcoming.
3 9. PLANNING CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS When used properly, conditions can enhance the quality of development and enable development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse planning permission, by mitigating the adverse effects of the development. Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are: 1. necessary; 2. relevant to planning and; 3. to the development to be permitted; 4. enforceable; 5. precise and; 6. reasonable in all other respects.”
It may be possible to overcome a planning objection to a development proposal equally well by imposing a condition on the planning permission or by entering into a planning obligation under . In such cases the Council should use a condition rather than seeking to deal with the matter by means of a planning obligation. Where a condition requires a matter to be dealt with prior to development commencing (also known as a ‘Grampian’ condition) it is a legal requirement to explain why the matter has be dealt with before, rather than at a later stage in development.
Planning obligations mitigate the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Obligations should meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. It particular the Planning Practice Guidance sets out minimum thresholds where, with the exception of mitigation of the effects of development on European sites, such as the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, obligations should
In all cases, including where tariff style charges are sought, the Council must ensure that the obligation meets the relevant tests for planning obligations in that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. There are also legal restrictions as to the number of planning obligations that can provide funds towards a particular item of infrastructure.
Planning obligations should not be sought – on for instance, public art – which are clearly not necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms
The Government is clear that obligations must be fully justified and evidenced.
10. PLANNING APPEALS If an application for planning permission is refused by the Council, or if it is granted with conditions, an appeal can be made to the Secretary of State against the decision, or the conditions. It is the Councils responsibility to produce evidence to show clearly, why the development cannot be permitted. Reasons for refusal must be Complete, Precise, Specific Relevant to the application, and Supported by substantiated evidence.
Appeals are administered by the Planning Inspectorate - an executive agency reporting to the Secretary of State. Appeals are considered by written representation, hearings, and public inquiries. In planning appeals, it is normally expected that both parties will pay their own costs.
4 The Council is at risk of an award of costs against it if it behaves unreasonably with respect to the substance of the matter under appeal, for example, by unreasonably refusing or failing to determine planning applications, or by unreasonably defending appeals. Examples of this include: Preventing or delaying development which should clearly be permitted, having regard to its accordance with the development plan, national policy and any other material considerations. Failure to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal on appeal Vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact, which are unsupported by any objective analysis. Refusing planning permission on a planning ground capable of being dealt with by conditions risks an award of costs, where it is concluded that suitable conditions would enable the proposed development to go ahead Acting contrary to, or not following, well-established case law Persisting in objections to a scheme or elements of a scheme which the Secretary of State or an Inspector has previously indicated to be acceptable Not determining similar cases in a consistent manner Failing to grant a further planning permission for a scheme that is the subject of an extant or recently expired permission where there has been no material change in circumstances Refusing to approve reserved matters when the objections relate to issues that should already have been considered at the outline stage Imposing a condition that is not necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects, and thus does not comply with the guidance in the NPPF on planning conditions and obligations Requiring that the appellant enter into a planning obligation which does not accord with the law or relevant national policy in the NPPF, on planning conditions and obligations Refusing to enter into pre-application discussions, or to provide reasonably requested information, when a more helpful approach would probably have resulted in either the appeal being avoided altogether, or the issues to be considered being narrowed, thus reducing the expense associated with the appeal Not reviewing their case promptly following the lodging of an appeal against refusal of planning permission (or non-determination), or an application to remove or vary one or more conditions, as part of sensible on-going case management. If the local planning authority grants planning permission on an identical application where the evidence base is unchanged and the scheme has not been amended in any way, they run the risk of a full award of costs for an abortive appeal which is subsequently withdrawn
Statutory consultees (and this includes Parish Council’s) play an important role in the planning system: local authorities often give significant weight to the technical advice of the key statutory consultees. Where the Council has relied on the advice of the statutory consultee in refusing an application, there is a clear expectation that the consultee in question will substantiate its advice at any appeal. Where the statutory consultee is a party to the appeal, they may be liable to an award of costs to or against them.
Interested parties who choose to be recognised as Rule 6 parties under the inquiry procedure rules, may be liable to an award of costs if they behave unreasonably.
11. THE ROLE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE The Secretary of State has reserve powers to direct the council to refer an application to him/her for decision. This is what is meant by a 'called-in' application. In general, this power of intervention is used selectively and the Secretary of State will not interfere with the jurisdiction of the Council unless it is necessary to do so.
12. PROPRIETY Members of the Planning Committee are obliged to represent the interests of the whole community in planning matters and not simply their individual Wards. When determining planning applications they must take into account planning considerations only. This can include views expressed on relevant 5 planning matters. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless it is founded upon valid planning reasons.
13. PRIVATE INTERESTS The planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another, although private interests may coincide with the public interest in some cases. It can be difficult to distinguish between public and private interests, but this may be necessary on occasion. The basic question is not whether owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities and the existing use of land and buildings that ought to be protected in the public interest. Covenants or the maintenance/ protection of private property are therefore not material planning consideration.
14. OTHER LEGISLATION Non-planning legislation may place statutory requirements on planning authorities, or may set out controls that need to be taken into account (for example, environmental legislation, or water resources legislation). The Council, in exercising its functions, also must have regard to the general requirements of other legislation, in particular: The Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. The general purpose of the ECHR is to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to maintain and promote the ideals and values of a democratic society. It sets out the basic rights of every person together with the limitations placed on these rights in order to protect the rights of others and of the wider community. The specific Articles of the ECHR relevant to planning include Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property). All planning applications are assessed to make sure that the subsequent determination of the development proposal is compatible with the Act. If there is a potential conflict, this will be highlighted in the report on the relevant item. The Equality Act 2010 which replaced previous discrimination legislation. This puts a duty on public bodies, such as the Council, to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations in the course of developing policies and delivering services. The aim is for public bodies to consider the needs of all individuals in their day to day work, in developing policy, in delivering services, and in relation to their own employees. The need to advance equality of opportunity involves considering the need to: o remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics; o meet the needs of people with protected characteristics; and o encourage people with protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is low
15. PUBLIC SPEAKING
The Council has a public speaking scheme, which allows a representative of the relevant Parish Council, objectors and applicants to address the Planning Committee. Full details of the scheme are on the Council’s website and are sent to all applicants and objectors where the scheme applies. Speaking is only available to those who have made representations within the relevant period or the applicant. It is not possible to arrange to speak to the Committee at the Committee meeting itself.
Speakers are limited to a total of three minutes each per item for the Parish Council, those speaking against the application and for the applicant/agent. Speakers are not permitted to ask questions of others or to join in the debate, although the Committee may ask questions of the speaker to clarify representations made or facts after they have spoken. For probity reasons associated with advance
6 disclosure of information under the Access to Information Act, nobody will be allowed to circulate, show or display further material at, or just before, the Committee meeting.
16. LATE REPRESENTATIONS
To make sure that all documentation is placed in the public domain and to ensure that the Planning Committee, applicants, objectors, and any other party has had a proper opportunity to consider further or new representations no new additional information will be allowed to be submitted less than 48 hours before the Committee meeting, except where to correct an error of fact in the report.
17. INSPECTION OF DRAWINGS
All drawings are available for inspection on the internet at www.hart.gov.uk
7 Annex A to Planning Report
Contributions towards Community Infrastructure and Mitigation to the effects of Residential Development on European Sites
Introduction In considering any development proposal it is necessary to consider is whether it will have a planning impact. This may be an impact on policy, on the environment, amenity or the physical capacity of the infrastructure to accommodate the development, with the Council not seeking to rectify any deficiencies. This can often be addressed by the use of planning conditions.
Planning conditions cannot however be used to require payment of money (so a tariff based approach is ruled out) and any use of planning conditions will have to meet the 6 tests on the use of planning conditions as set out in the NPPF. This means that planning conditions should only be imposed where they are: (i) Necessary; (ii) Relevant to planning; (iii) Relevant to the development to be permitted; (iv) Enforceable; (v) Precise and; (vi) Reasonable in all other respects.
Such a planning condition would require that the necessary infrastructure to be put in place in line with an agreed timetable. This may be facilitated by a “planning obligation” under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended). A “planning obligation” may: a) Restrict the development or use of the land in any specified way; b) Require specified operations or activities to be carried out in, on, under or over the land; c) Require the land to be used in any specified way; or d) Require a sum or sums to be paid to the authority on a specified date or dates or periodically.
The Council’s Community Infrastructure Policy was agreed at Cabinet in December 2010 and sets out the Council’s overall approach towards the collection of contributions towards transport, education, leisure and open space, and the Thames Basins Heath SPA.
It stipulates that planning obligations would only be sought: a) On case by case basis, and b) Taking into account development viability, c) Where they meet the three policy test as set out in the National Planning Policy Frameworks (NPPF) as well as the CIL Regulations, and d) Where there are agreed projects that meet the criteria set out in the advice note issued by the Planning Inspectorate, and e) Where an agreed programme exists to implement the infrastructure.
The Council’s Cabinet has subsequently updated the list of projects on a number of occasions lastly at its meeting held on 7 August 2014.
Reference should also be made to the preface to the Committee report paper which sets out information on Government Policy.
This Annex sets out the Council’s policy position in respect of contributions and should be read in conjunction with the individual reports which will set out the justification for the contribution sought in each individual case.
Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area
8 Saved local plan policies CON1 and CON2 relate to the Thames Basin Special Protection Area (SPA) and state that development which would adversely affect the nature conservation value of a site will only be permitted if it can be subject to conditions that will prevent damaging impacts on wildlife habitats or other natural features of importance on the site or if other material factors are sufficient to override the nature conservation interest. South East Plan policy NRM6 requires adequate measures to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects on the Thames Basin Special Protection Area (SPA).
The SPA is a network of heathland sites which are designated for their ability to provide a habitat for the internationally important bird species of woodlark, nightjar and Dartford warbler. The area is designated as a result of the Birds Directive and the European Habitats Directive and protected in the UK under the provisions set out in the Habitats Regulations. These bird species are particularly subject to disturbance from walkers, dog walkers and cat predation because they nest on or near the ground.
Natural England has indicated that it believes that within 5km of the SPA additional residential development in combination will have a significant effect on the SPA. Thus without mitigation any proposal is contrary to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.
In April 2008 the Thames Basin Heaths Joint Strategic Partnership agreed a Thames Basin Heaths Delivery Framework to enable the delivery of housing in the vicinity of the SPA without that development having a significant effect on the SPA as a whole. The delivery framework is based on avoidance measures and the policy indicates that these measures can take the form of areas of open space known as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). The policy also states that local authorities will collect developer contributions towards mitigation measures including the provision of SANGs land and joint contributions to the funding of Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) the effects of mitigation measures across the SPA.
To allow the Council to conclude that a proposal will have no likely significant effect on the SPA there are likely to be two options. The first is to provide, lay out and ensure the maintenance of, in perpetuity, of a SANG. The physical provision of SANG is likely only to be suitable for schemes in excess of 60 dwellings due to the need to meet Natural England’s guidelines for SANGs. The achievement of this is likely to be through the mechanism of a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). The second is to enter into a land transaction for an appropriate financial sum with the Council to obtain a licence to utilise part of one of the Council’s SANGs in mitigation. In addition a financial contribution will be sought towards SAMM. The sums the Council considers appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the development and how they are calculated, are set out in the policy.
In terms of the tests set out in the NPPF, a planning condition is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms by mitigating against the impact of an increase in population within 5km of the SPA. It relates both to planning (the protection of the SPA) and the development itself with the size of contribution sought relates to the population that will be likely to occupy the development. The wording of the condition will be precise, enforceable and the condition will be reasonable in all other respects.
It would be therefore be possible to conclude that the development will not have an adverse effect on the SPA and therefore complies with saved policies CON1 and CON2, South East Plan policy NRM6 and the CIL Regulations.
Transport Saved Local Plan policies T14 and T16 seek to ensure that development is served effectively by public transport, cycling or walking and that improvements made necessary by development are to be funded by that development. This relates not only to physical improvements required to permit development to take place (such as sight lines at an entrance to a site), but also to the wider network, seeking to allow development provided that it could be effectively served by public transport, cycling and walking.
9 The Hampshire Local Transport Plan (LTP) relates to the years 2011 - 2031 and makes reference to the North Hampshire Transport Strategy (NHTS) which covers the areas administered by Hart District Council, Rushmoor and Basingstoke and Deane Borough Councils and that part of the area of Test Valley Borough Council north of the A303.
Within the Fleet/Church Crookham/Elvetham Heath area the County Council has also adopted the Fleet Town Access Plan (FTAP) as a sub-programme of NHTS.
The Hampshire wide Local Transport Plan identifies a number of key themes: a) Supporting the economy through resilient highways; b) Management of traffic; c) The role of public transport; d) Quality of life and place; e) Transport and growth areas
Additional development brings with it additional multi-modal transport impacts. This is additional cars, cycles and use of public transport which has an incremental impact on the transport infrastructure. In line therefore with saved policy T14 it is incumbent on developers to show how they intend the development to be served by public transport, cycling and walking. The provision of a contribution towards either NTHS or FTAP would provide that mitigation.
In terms of the policy tests in the NPPF the condition is necessary in that it will secure a scheme that will mitigate the effects of the development on the local transport infrastructure which relates to planning. The scale and kind of the contribution sought relates to the increase in transport activity. The details of the direct link between the schemes the contribution will fund and the development are set out in the Committee report. The wording of the condition will be precise, enforceable and the condition will be reasonable in all other respects.
Leisure As part of living in a dwelling its residents will use the local leisure infrastructure to undertake recreation. The impact on infrastructure used for recreation is clearly a material planning consideration.
Some of this infrastructure is of a strategic, District-wide, nature while other is more local. At a local level the Council has determined that as a general rule the local infrastructure will be considered at the Parish level.
Even where infrastructure is of a District wide nature it is clear that the further from a development itself the less likely that the residents will use that infrastructure. Utilising visitor data, the Council has set “zones of influence” of the individual elements where it is known that residents visit and will have an impact.
In terms of the policy tests in the NPPF the condition will secure a scheme to mitigate the effects of the development on the leisure infrastructure, which, as set out above, relates to planning. The scale and kind of the contribution sought relates to the increase in leisure activity. The details of the direct link between the projects the scheme will be spent on and the development are set out in the Committee report. The wording of the condition will be precise, enforceable and the condition will be reasonable in all other respects.
Without the necessary scheme in place additional development would exacerbate the existing deficiency in provision for leisure facilities within the vicinity of the site through an increase in population who would have access to the facilities. The nature of the scheme has been assessed through the Council's Leisure Strategy as being appropriate to mitigate these effects.
Education
10 Hampshire County Council has advised in their policy document Developers’ Contributions towards Children’s Services Facilities December 2011 where the availability of school places is particularly critical, contributions should be sought in relation to each individual dwelling. Hampshire County Council has confirmed that there are particular pressures on places at the primary and secondary schools in the Fleet/Church Crookham schools and Hook catchment areas, and in the catchment of the Robert Mays secondary school in Odiham where any increase in population will add to the demand beyond the available capacity. Full details of the issues are set out in the Community Infrastructure Policy.
In Fleet/Church Crookham, Hook and Odiham programmes for the provision of additional educational facilities are well advanced. The County Council considers it preferable to invest in existing schools where achievable in building terms and where agreement can be reached with the headteacher and governors of the schools involved.
Schools are ideally organised into classes of 30 pupils across the age range of the school to support curriculum delivery relevant to the pupil year group and to meet statutory class size regulations whereby no class can be larger than 30 for pupils aged 5 to 7. It is not practical, therefore, for schools to marginally increase their capacity, have larger than ideal class sizes, or create a budget deficit due to the need to employ an additional teacher for very small increases to pupil numbers.
In terms of the policy tests in the NPPF the agreed scheme will mitigate the effects of the development on the education infrastructure, which as set out above relates to the proper planning of the area. The scale and kind of the contribution sought relates to the facilities being provided. The details of the direct link between the contribution and the development are set out above. The wording of the condition will be precise, enforceable and the condition will be reasonable in all other respects.
11 Item No: 101 Page: 13 – 27 15/02915/FUL Refuse
329 Fleet Road Fleet Hampshire GU51 3BU
Location: 329-331 Fleet Road including land to the rear of 325-331 Fleet Road Demolition of Nos.329-331 Fleet Road and erection of four storey hotel containing 71 bedrooms with parking for 39 cars
Item No: 102 Page: 28 – 36 16/00514/FUL Refuse
The Barn Watery Lane Church Crookham Fleet GU52 0RN
Demolition of existing dwelling and barn and erection of two detached dwellings with associated parking and landscaping Page: 37 – 54 Item No: 103 15/00823/FUL Grant
Park Farm Bramshill Road Heckfield Hook Hampshire RG27 0LD
Reinstatement of former access road from Mill Lane to Heckfield Place
12
COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 101 APPLICATION NO. 15/02915/FUL LOCATION 329 Fleet Road Fleet Hampshire GU51 3BU PROPOSAL Location: 329-331 Fleet Road including land to the rear of 325-331 Fleet Road Demolition of Nos.329-331 Fleet Road and erection of four storey hotel containing 71 bedrooms with parking for 39 cars APPLICANT Zibdawn Associates CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 14 March 2016 APPLICATION EXPIRY 10 March 2016 WARD Fleet Central RECOMMENDATION Refuse
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Please Note: Map is not to scale
13 SITE PLAN
14 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
15 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
16 THE SITE
This site is located within Fleet Town Centre, within an area defined as the secondary retail frontage by the Hart District Local Plan (as saved). The application property is 329-331 Fleet Road with these properties being local listed buildings and currently occupied by a fast food takeaway and retail shop at ground floor with a taxi office and residential flat above, the rear of the site is occupied by a car storage/sales business. The application site also includes the rear of the gardens of 158 to 154 Albert Street and an access road onto Albert Street.
329 and 331 are local listed buildings with the following details contained in the local listing:
''315-337 Group of domestic scaled buildings. All two storey and typical of late Victorian early Edwardian architecture.
No. 329 - 331 - red brick with stone lintels and cills. Arts and crafts style timbered gable end with render panels. Slate roof with crested terracotta ridge and finials. Sash windows. ''
The existing vehicular access to the site is from Fleet Road, however the application site also includes an access road off Albert Street which currently serve the flatted developments of Woodman Court and Edmunds Court.
PROPOSAL
This application seeks planning permission for demolition of 329 - 331 Fleet Road and erection of a four storey hotel building with 71 bedrooms and a ground floor dining area and on site parking for 39 cars.
The proposed hotel building would have a total width of approximately 21 metres, a total depth of approximately 58 metres and a maximum height of approximately 14 metres.
The access off Fleet Road would revert to an entrance only and the proposal is to utilise the shared access onto Albert Street as the primary vehicular access. The gardens of 158-154 Albert Street would be reduced in depth with the rear of the gardens forming part of the proposed parking area.
CONSULTEES RESPONSES
Fleet Town Council
Objection
' Parking is tight and inaccessible ' Proposed development would dominate neighbouring buildings and be out of keeping with street scene ' Drainage is inadequate to cope with another development
Thames Water Property Services
Following initial investigation, Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this application. Should the Local Planning Authority look to approve the application, Thames Water would like the following 'Grampian Style' condition imposed. "Development shall not commence until a drainage strategy detailing any on and/or off site drainage works, has been submitted to and approved by, the local planning authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker.
17 No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be accepted into the public system until the drainage works referred to in the strategy have been completed". Reason - The development may lead to sewage flooding; to ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community.
Thames Water would recommend that petrol / oil interceptors be fitted in all car parking/washing/repair facilities.
Failure to enforce the effective use of petrol / oil interceptors could result in oil-polluted discharges entering local watercourses.
(officer comment: both foul sewerage and the use of petrol/oil interceptors can be secured via condition should an application be approved)
Streetcare Officer (Internal)
Following a site visit and review of the location, the Joint Waste Client Team would like to raise the following concerns:
The grey area highlighted on the proposed plan as 'Car Parking Ingress/Egress' is also currently used by the residents of Woodman Court and St Edmunds Court. The area shown in white is the car parking area for the residents of Woodman Court, something which, the proposed plan does not make clear.
The Refuse Collection Vehicle (RCV) currently reverses from Albert Street down to the corner of St Edmunds Court to facilitate waste collections. this is potentially going to be against oncoming traffic. There will be no space for cars to manoeuvre around the RCV, which will result in heightened emotions and potential verbal abuse/road rage and unsafe driving acts from those hotel customers attempting to enter from or exit to Albert Street.
The road surface is in a poor conditions and the distance is too far to safely wheel bins down to Albert Street for collections.
The current waste collection area encroaches into the grey highlighted area on the proposed plan, which could further restrict access or result in damage to vehicles of wheeled containers.
The proposed Ingress/Egress area will be a shared access for the residents of Woodmans Court, St Edmunds Court and the proposed hotel development. If this area is going to be resurfaced then indemnity will be required from the landowner against any damages to the road surface.
The preferred option would be for the bins to be relocated to an area closer to Albert Street to allow easier access and safer passage of wheeled bins to the RCV, which could park on Albert Street. This would completely eliminate the need to reverse on to private land. This would also eliminate the potential blockage to vehicles and minimise the risks associated with an RCV reversing against the traffic flow.
Environmental Health (Internal)
Noise:
There is insufficient information to advice in respect of the likely noise impact of the proposed development. Clarification is needed as to if there will be installation of ventilation and extraction equipment.
Please can there be clarification as to what the plant room on the third floor will be used for? 18 Were ventilation and extraction equipment is to be installed we would require a detailed noise impact assessment prior to approval. Due to concerns over the noise impact on the local residents, the assessment should include details of any necessary mitigation that maybe required.
Please can you provide further information as to if there will be any proposed restrictions on deliveries this to include food and laundry deliveries.
Dust:
It is requested that a dust management plan is provided for the demolition and development of the site due to close proximity of residential properties as well as being on the main high street, this department require this information prior to approval.
Light:
This department would like to ensure there is adequate lighting provided in the car parking area, without having a negative impact on local residents. Therefore it is requested that a lighting scheme is provide for the immediate area of the car park.
Food Business:
The premises will need to apply for Food Premises Registration with the Environmental Health Department at least 28 days before opening.
Contaminated Land:
A watching brief needs to be maintained over the site during the development and if any unexpected ground conditions are identified during the site development Environmental Health Department should be notified accordingly.
Comments made in relation to the National Planning Policy Framework Paras 109, 120 and 123.
(officer comment: all of the above could be secured by condition should an application be recommended for approval)
Natural England
No comments
Ecology Consult (Internal)
I have no record of protected species on the site and the proposals will not affect any designated sites of nature conservation value.
The AA ecology report (October 2015) found no potential for protected species on the site after an inspection of the existing buildings and surrounding site.
I have no objection to this application on the grounds of biodiversity.
Highways
Below is a summary of the main points raised:
19 Access and visibility 1) The Applicant shows two access points into the site, one from Albert Street and one from Fleet Road. The access onto Albert Street is suitable for two-way use and the Fleet Road access is suitable as an entrance only.
2) Pedestrian inter-visibility of 1.5m by 1.5m and 2.4m by 43m sightlines should be shown from the vehicular proposed access points. The Applicant states that the footway is 2.4m wide and, therefore, the 2.4m x 43m sightlines can be achieved.
Additional comments received on the 29th of March based on additional information:
Trip generation and junction analysis 1) The Applicant has undertaken a trip comparison, as requested and this shows that there will not be an increase in the number of person trips attracted to the site, which is acceptable.
Parking 2) The point was previously made that the Hotel will need to ensure that it directs visitors to the public car parks in the event that their private car park is at capacity. The way in which they do this will have to be covered within a Travel Plan and secured under a S106 agreement. The Applicant will need to consider how they will encourage or incentivise the use of the public car parks. The Applicant has stated that they will do this and a final Travel Plan should be submitted for approval prior to occupation of the Hotel.
Servicing arrangements 3) Revised swept paths have been provided, which are acceptable.
Travel Plan 4) The Applicant has stated that a Travel Plan will be required, which is welcomed. The Travel Plan should be submitted for approval prior to occupation of the Hotel.
Transport contribution 5) No Transport Contribution will be required.
No highway objection subject to the submission of a Travel Plan prior to occupation of the Hotel.
Tree Officer (Internal)
No objection on arboricultural grounds.
Conservation/Listed Buildings Officer (Internal)
This development would require the demolition of the locally listed building. The same advice principles have been provided at pre-app and on application advice prior to submission of this application. The same principle comments apply.
- No justification for the demolition and harm to the non-designated heritage asset. - The design and proportion of the proposed scheme is incongruous to the street scene.
Recommend refusal. Architects Panel
This scheme totally ignores the previous Design Review Panel advice, and therefore the comments made from that panel are still relevant and should be reiterated to the applicant.
20 Although the depth of the building towards Albert Road has been reduced the height of the building appears to have increased.
The size and scale seems far too big, and this dominates the front elevation facing Fleet Road. The Hotel proposal is not sensitive to the scale of the site and misjudges it badly, especially to the smaller domestic scale buildings in Albert Road, which this proposal dominates. The projection of this proposal towards Albert Street blurs the line between the commercial development on Fleet Road and the residential buildings in Albert Street. In this section of the town there appears to be a distinct line between the two which appears to be roughly along the centre line of the space between the two roads and this proposed incursion into this backland will set a dangerous precedent.
The proposal involves the removal of two locally Listed buildings which are representative of the particular character to this section of Fleet Road. As such the panel would expect a proposal that is exemplary and enhances this character, and considers and enhances the street scene.
Hampshire County Council Flood Authority
In this instance we would be satisfied that the provision of a Surface Water Drainage Plan forms part of a planning condition. The condition should however state that until a Surface Water Drainage Plan has been submitted to the Lead Local Flood Authority for comment works should not be allowed to commence.
Please refer the developer to our website for a list of what is expected within a Surface Water Drainage Plan to enable us to respond fully: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/flooding/hampshireflooding/drainagesystems/planning-application-guidance.htm
NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS
At the time of writing this report 3 letters of objection and 21 letter of support (19 of the support letters are the same letter which has been signed individually the occupants of neighbouring businesses)
Supports
- Welcome increase in trade - Hotel is in a particularly good location - Weekday business on Fleet Road is poor at present - Although there is a window in the rear of 327 this room is used for storage
Objections
- Loss of privacy 21 windows would overlook neighbouring property - Loss of sunlight - Would contravene Human Rights legislation (officer comment: this is not a material planning consideration and is a civil legal matter) - Objection to land being used to access the site - title documents only specify access for 325/337 Fleet Road and Woodman Court - Owner will not allow access onto Albert Street - Access is not wide enough for two cars to pass each other - No formal notification about the planning application directly to the owner (officer comment: notification was sent to each individual property rather than Sentinel the owner) - Out of character with the residential use - Adverse impact on amenities of occupants of Woodman Court
21 POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES
Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006
GEN1 - General policy for development
F3 - Fleet Town Centre Secondary Retail Area
CON17 - Listed Buildings Extension-Alteration
CON5 - Nature conserv Species Protected
CON8 - Trees, Woods & Hedgerows Amenity Value
CONSIDERATIONS
Principle
Policy F3 (Fleet Town Centre Secondary Retail Area) of the Hart District Local Plan identifies this part of the town centre as being suitable for A1 (retail), A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (catering) or leisure uses at ground floor with residential A2, A3 or B1 uses above. The proposed use does not fall within these categories of development.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identifies hotels as appropriate town centre uses, and it is recognised that provision of such a facility would be to the benefit of the vitality and vibrancy of the town centre and would complement the surrounding restaurant and retail uses.
The core aim of both the NPPF and the Local Plan is to ensure the viability and the vitality of the Town Centre is maintained, and to promote competitive town centre environments. The proposed development would help achieve this objective and would enhance the vitality of the town centre, therefore the proposed development would not be contrary to the Local Plan.
Therefore, the principle of development is considered to be acceptable and in line with the objectives of the NPPF and the Local Plan (as saved).
Design and character of the area
This site is in a prominent part of Fleet Town Centre located within the secondary retail area with the site visible from Fleet Road, Albert Street and Reading Road North frontages.
Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states ''good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people''. Furthermore, Policy GEN1 seeks to ensure that development is in keeping with the local character by virtue of the scale, design, massing, height, prominence, materials, layout, landscaping, siting and density. The application property is also a local listed building and therefore for the purposes of the NPPF is a non-designated heritage asset. The NPPF seeks to ensure that development does not unduly harm significance of heritage assets, and paragraph 135 of the NPPF states the following with regards to undesignated heritage assets:
''The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.'' 22 The proposed development would result in the replacement of the two storey domestic scale local listed buildings with a four storey building. This proposed building would sit between 333 and 327 Fleet Road; both are of a similar two storey scale to the building to be demolished and also local listed buildings. The design of the building is in the form of a modern flat roofed building, with the floors staggered back into the site and the front of the building set back by approximately 3 metres in an attempt to reduce the scale of the building when viewed in the context of the neighbouring buildings. However, the third storey is only set back from the principle elevation by 0.4 of a metre and the fourth storey set back by a total of 6 metres from the principle elevation. Therefore, the height bulk and massing of the building would still be evident within the Fleet Road street scene. The resultant scale in relation to the adjoining two storey buildings would result in a visually dominant form of development that would appear out of context with the surroundings. The building would dominate the street scene and would be harmful when viewed in the context of the smaller adjoining buildings. This would be particularly apparent when viewed from a distance such as the opposite side of Fleet Road or within the Gurkha Square.
The building would also appear visually dominant when viewed from the opposite side of Albert Street and from Reading Road North when viewed from gaps between properties. The proximity to the rear of the two storey residential properties along Albert Street which are on lower land than the application site, combined with the height, bulk and massing of the rear elevation would result in a visually dominant development when viewed from Albert Street. That would also appear out of keeping with the context with the street scene along Albert Street, and harmful to the character of the area.
The applicant has pointed to Richmond Court along Fleet Road which is also a substantial building within the wider street scene. Richmond Court was consented in 1975 under a different policy context, with the NPPF now providing a strong policy context in relation to design. It is however, accepted that three and four storey built form can be achieved within town centre and edge of centre locations, however this should only be when the building responds appropriately to its surroundings in both design and scale. In any instance the application proposal is materially different to the building at Richmond Court as it has a narrower frontage onto the Fleet Road and would appear more cramped in relation to the two storey built form either side.
The scheme has been reviewed by the North East Hampshire Design Review Panel who have raised similar concerns stating that the size and scale of the built form is ''far too big''. The Council's Conservation Officer is also raising objection to the loss of the local listed building and considers that the design and proportion is incongruous to the street scene. The Planning Authority are in agreement with these comments and consider that the scale of development and relationship with adjoining buildings is harmful to the character of the area and contrary to Guidance contained in the NPPF and policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan (as saved).
The proposal also seeks to demolish the local listed building, paragraph 135 of the NPPF considers that in weighing applications that directly affect non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. The applicant's heritage statement has claimed that the building is not worthy of local listing, and given that the local listing was not available to the applicant on the Council's website the appellant's statement considers that the building is not local listed. The building is subject to a local listing (with this listing provided above in the site description). The heritage statement submitted by the applicant has been reviewed by the Council's Conservation Officer who remains of the opinion that there is merit to the local listing of this building, and that when combined with the adjacent buildings also subject to the listing the significance of these buildings remain. The development would clearly harm the significance of these local listed buildings as they would be demolished, furthermore combined with the poor design response in terms of scale massing and impact on the street scene there are no substantive reasons to accept the loss of these local listed buildings. The development would also be contrary to the objectives of the NPPF and Policy CON17 of the Hart District Local Plan in this regard.
23 Impact on amenity
The NPPF states that development should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.
The proposed development would enclose the built form of the surrounding development and a number of these properties contain residential accommodation at first floor level.
327 Fleet Road is occupied at ground floor by a restaurant (Gurkha Square Restaurant). With living accommodation provided at first floor level. The applicant has indicated that the rear bedroom is currently used for storage, however the planning history shows that this is part of the first floor residential use, and the layout has not been materially altered past the consent granted in 1971 (71/02644/F2) for the extension of the first floor living accommodation. No subsequent consent has been granted for any change of use of this space to an alternative use. The consented accommodation includes two bedrooms, a kitchen and bathroom with all of the windows facing the application site, whilst not fully occupied at present consideration should be given to the fact that it could become fully occupied in the future. It is accepted that the kitchen window is already impacted on by the existing built form within the application site. However, there is currently a clear view from the two bedroom windows. The proposed four storey built form would wrap around these windows, and would result in an over dominant/overbearing built relationship when viewed from these windows, and a harmful loss of light. The proposal would be to the detriment of the amenities of future occupants of this adjoining property.
325 Fleet Road has two first floor flats in the rear of the building. Consent was granted in 2005 for these flats (05/01076/FUL) and has been implemented, the flats have bedroom and living room windows in the flank and rear of the building. These windows would suffer an adverse impact due to being positioned so close to the proposed development. By reason of the proximity and size of the development there would be a loss of light and overbearing impact to the windows in the side and rear of these flats, to the detriment of the amenities of future occupiers. Furthermore, the windows within the side of the proposed development at first floor level would provide direct overlooking of the flank windows of these two flats. The proposal would be harmful to the amenities of occupants of these properties.
The development would also extend on the boundary past the rear building line of 333 Fleet Road (occupied on the ground floor by the We restaurant) which includes ancillary residential accommodation to the rear.
The accommodation was granted consent in 2002 (02/00265/FUL) whilst it is noted from the site visit that there has been some internal re arrangements, there are still some primary bedroom windows in the rear of this building at first floor level. The applicant has drawn attention to the current occupants use as not being permanent residents, and that it currently operates as transient accommodation for staff when working on shifts. However, there is no reason why this could not be expected to be occupied on a more permanent basis in the future should the ownership or tenants change. Given the proximity of the flank wall of the development to this rear elevation to the proposal would result in an overbearing impact in relation to the rear windows of this flat.
The proposed development would also result in the shortening of the rear gardens of 158 to 154 Albert Street. The rear garden depths retained would be at approximately 9 metres in depth, with the smallest of the resulting gardens being at 158 Albert Street due to the repositioning of the access. In size terms the resulting garden area would be sufficient to meet the needs of future occupants of these dwellings. Furthermore, only secondary windows occupy the rear elevation of the building so there would not be any direct overlooking. The two storey element would be set 9.6 metres from the rear boundary, with the three and four storey development approximately 12 metres from the boundary with the gardens. Whilst it is recognised that these distances are fairly substantial, the height of the building at 14 metres and the width of the development (combined with the elevated height of the application site) would 24 result in a visually dominant form of development and overbearing impact in relation to the rear gardens of these properties along Albert Street. 154a and 154 Albert Street would be the most severely effected, however there would also be harmful to the gardens of 157 and 152 Albert Street.
St Edmonds Court and Woodman Court are located to the south, the distances of separation are significant (approximately 20 metres from the building), combined with the orientation of these flats to the south the development the proposal would not result in a material overbearing impact, loss of privacy or loss of light to the occupants of these properties. Concerns have been recieved that there would be overlooking of gardens to the north of the site along Albert Street. However, the angle of windows on the side elevation would not result in a direct pattern of overlooking in relation to these properties.
Comments have been received from the Council's Environmental Health Department with regards to a lack of information relating to the internal plant room and information on any external ventilation systems. This concern is primarily a concern with the potential for noise within the building. However, should an application be considered acceptable appropriate details could be secured via condition.
In summary the proposed development would be harmful to the amenities of neighbouring residential properties for the reasons described above therefore the proposal would be contrary to the objectives of the NPPF and policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan (as saved).
Impact on parking access and highway safety
This site is located within a town centre location and would provide 39 car parking spaces with accesses off both Fleet Road and Albert Street.
The access off Fleet Road would be an entrance only and subject to appropriate signage would be acceptable. The Council's Highways Engineer has reviewed the access proposed as two way access off Albert Street and is rasing no objections to the intensification of the use of this access. It is noted that this access is in shared ownership and it has been indicated that access would not be granted over this land. However, this is a civil matter and not a reason to refuse planning permission.
With regards to parking provision the scheme proposes 39 new parking spaces, the Council's adopted interim parking guidance indicates that the use should provide 1 space per bedroom, and therefore a total of 71 would be required for this development. The applicant has supplied data from similar developments that have been completed and is of the opinion that the actual parking demand for this development is likely to be closer to 33 spaces. The applicant has also identified that there is potential for any overspill parking to utilise the public car parking in the area. Victoria Road Car Park and the Civic Offices Car Parks are available for over night parking and close to the application site. The applicants transport statement has been reviewed by the Council's Highways Engineer who is raising no objection to the amount of parking proposed subject to a suitable travel plan being completed prior to first occupation.
Furthermore, the Council's Highways Engineer has reviewed trip rate data from similar developments and compared this to potential trip generations from the existing use. The proposal would not materially increase trip rates to a degree that a contribution should be sought towards local transport infrastructure.
With regards to serving arrangements the development would be serviced to the rear and the applicant has shown that a service vehicle can turn within the site. It is however noted that objections have been received from the Council's Street Care/Waste Department. The concerns raised regarding ownership and the condition of the surface are civil matters between the owners of the land and the applicants. However, there has been concern raised with regards to the loss of space for the provision of the bins 25 serving St Edmonds Court and Woodman Court. The Council’s Highways Engineer has further reviewed the arrangements within the courtyard for bin collection and is not raising objection. Whilst there may be some conflict with bin collection this would only occur once a week and access would remain for refuse vehicles. The impact on refuse collection would not be so severe as to justify the refusal of planning permission.
The proposal is considered to be acceptable with regards to parking access and highway safety.
Impact on ecology
Although the application would result in the demolition of a building and this can have an impact on bats, the site is located in an area of low potential and the building is in active use. The application has been reviewed by the Council's Ecologist who has confirmed that no objections are raised.
Subject to an informative attached to any consent reminding the applicant of their responsibilities should bats be discovered during the development process the application is acceptable in this regard.
Impact on trees
The proposal would result in the loss of some trees within the site. These are not particularly prominent within the street scene and no objections have been raised by the Council's Tree Officer to their removal. Therefore, the impact on trees would not be so significant as to warrant the refusal of planning permission.
CONCLUSION
The site is located within Fleet Town Centre and would be positive in introducing a use that would supplement the surrounding Town Centre uses. However, the proposal would result visually dominant pattern of development that would be harmful to the character of the street scene and also the amenities of occupants of neighbouring residential properties. The development would therefore be contrary to the objectives of the NPPF and the Hart District Local Plan (as saved).
Therefore, the application is recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION - Refuse
REASONS FOR REFUSAL
1 The proposed development by reason of the height, bulk and scale in relation to adjoining properties would result in an unduly dominant form of development harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding street scenes. The proposal would be contrary to the objectives of Policy GEN1 and guidance contained in the NPPF in this regard.
2 The proposed development by reason of the height, bulk and massing in close proximity to neighbouring windows within the flats above 325 and 327 Fleet Road would result in an overbearing impact and loss of light to these windows and would be harmful to the amenities afforded by occupants of these properties. The proposal would be contrary to the objectives of Policy GEN1 and guidance contained in the NPPF in this regard.
3 The proposed development by reason of the height, bulk and depth in close proximity to neighbouring windows above 333 Fleet Road would result in an overbearing impact harmful to the amenities afforded by occupants of these properties. The proposal would be contrary to the objectives of Policy GEN1 and guidance contained in the NPPF in this regard.
26 4 The proposed development by reason of the height, bulk and massing and position in relation to the rear gardens of 156 to 152 Albert Street would result in an overbearing impact to the rear gardens of these properties. To the detriment of the amenities of occupants of these properties. The proposal would be contrary to the objectives of Policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan and guidance contained in the NPPF in this regard.
INFORMATIVES
1 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance: o The applicant was advised of the necessary information needed to process the application. o The applicant was provided with pre-application advice. However, the application did not follow the recommendations of that advice and the proposal is unacceptable for the reasons given above. o The applicant was advised of the issues relating to the impact on character and residential amenities during the processing of the application but declined to submit amended plans to address these concerns. Consequently the proposal is unacceptable for the reasons given above.
27 COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 102 APPLICATION NO. 16/00514/FUL LOCATION The Barn Watery Lane Church Crookham Fleet GU52 0RN PROPOSAL Demolition of existing dwelling and barn and erection of two detached dwellings with associated parking and landscaping APPLICANT Mr John Woodhouse CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 15 April 2016 APPLICATION EXPIRY 25 April 2016 WARD Church Crookham West And Ewshot RECOMMENDATION Refusal
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Please Note: Map is not to scale
28 SITE PLAN
29 PROPOSED PLANS
30 BACKGROUND
This application is brought to committee for determination as accepting the principle in the countryside represents a departure from countryside policy RUR2; the application is in accordance with the Interim Housing Delivery Strategy which means that the application does not require referral to Full Council.
THE SITE
This site is located within the countryside just outside of the settlement area of Fleet as identified on the proposals map of the Hart District Local Plan (as saved). The application property comprises of a caravan which has been granted a lawful development certificate for occupation in 2008, and a barn which has been used as a storage/workshop.
The surrounding land to the west has been subject to an outline consent for 300 dwellings, with the field directly to the west being part of a housing parcel.
The application site currently has vehicular access onto the bridleway of Watery Lane before it becomes defined as a shared surface.
PROPOSAL
This application seeks planning permission for the erection of two detached dwellings following the demolition of the existing caravan and barn on the site.
Both dwellings are of the same design and layout with one a handed version of the other. The proposed dwellings would have a total width of 15.3 metres, a total depth of 11.5 metres and a ridge height of approximately 7.4 metres. The properties would have five bedrooms and an integral double garage.
Both dwellings would utilise the existing access off Watery Lane, which at the point of access is classified as a bridleway.
HISTORY
08/03076/LDCEX Continued siting and occupation of a mobile home Agreed 09.02.2009
05/01501/COU Change of use to residential dwelling and removal of caravan Refused and appeal dismissed
CONSULTEES RESPONSES
Crookham Village Parish Council
CVPC draws attention to the 2006 refusal of appeal APP/N1730/A/06/2019751 (05/01501/COU) for this site, especially the inspector's assessment of access at para 9 of the decision notice.
CVPC has failed to locate documentary evidence to support the applicant’s assertion that the site is brownfield or that business activity currently being conducted on the site has planning approval.
Until work is significantly under way on site under 14/00504/MAJOR for the adjacent Albany Park site, CVPC believes that it is premature to assert that this site falls within the extended settlement boundary.
It is also noted that the property history on the web under the current application seems incomplete, lacking, for example, additional items listed under 05/01501/COU.
31 Ecology Consult (Internal)
There are numerous records of protected species in the surrounding area, including Zebon Copse Local Nature Reserve. However, none are directly relevant to the application site. The proposals will not directly affect any designated sites of nature conservation value. Redfields Rows and Poulter's Lane Meadows are located in close proximity to the application site but will not be affected.
The Extended Phase 1 habitat survey found limited potential for protected species on the site although the barn was found to have some potential to support roosting bats. In consultation with myself, it was agreed that the roof lining should be removed during the winter to negate the possibility of any seasonal roosting by bats. I support the recommendations for enhancement and mitigation outlined in the report.
I have no objection to this application on the grounds of biodiversity providing the recommendations in the ecology report are implemented in full.
Highways
Access 1) Watery Lane currently has residential properties along and is appropriate for an additional two dwellings. However, it should be demonstrated that a large car and Fir Tender can negotiated the tight bend into the site from Watery Lane, with the use of swept paths.
Parking 2) There appears to be ample space for at least 3 cars to park off-street, which is acceptable. 3) Could the Applicant please clarify that the integral double garages are at least 6m long by 6m wide internally.
Servicing arrangements 4) Could the Applicant please state how a refuse vehicle will service the site and turn around in order to exit the site in a forward gear. 5) As state previously, it should be demonstrated that Fire Tender can access the site and turn around within the site in order to exit in a forward gear.
I recommend that the further information set out above is provided prior to a decision being made.
Streetcare Officer (Internal)
From a waste collection perspective, the collection of wheeled bins from this location will prove problematic.
The refuse collection vehicle (RCV) will need to be able to turn around at the end of Watery Lane. The RCV cannot reverse down to the proposed properties due to the distance from the closest turning further up Watery Lane. Reversing these distances contravenes Health & Safety Executive Guidance and Best Practice.
If there is no turning circle provided at the end of Watery Lane then we would advise that Hart District Council and its waste collection contractor would require permission and indemnity from the land owners to turn around in the car parking area between the two properties. Allowing the proposed wall at the driveway entrance may inhibit the ability for the RCV to manoeuvre safely without risk of damaging the wall.
The collection of wheeled bins from these two properties is dependant on the installation of a turning circle and/or turning area are within the driveway area. The collection of wheeled bins from these properties is also dependant on indemnity and permission to be provided by the residents. 32 If any one of these cannot be provided then the residents will need to leave wheeled bins further up watery Lane for collection where the vehicle can turn around.
NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS
One letter of objection has been received at the time of writing this report, below is a summary of the main points raised:
* Appeal decision should be taken into consideration (officer comment: this has been taken into consideration) * Development should not be permitted in the countryside * Should be considered in isolation as the surrounding residential development has not been implemented yet * Only outline consent exists for Albany Park, this may not proceed * No ongoing commercial use * Ecology survey is not sufficient, additional environmental investigation should be undertaken * Watery Lane is a bridleway and it is an offence to use a bridleway for vehicular traffic without lawful authority. This appears to have been missed by the Highways consultee.
POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES
Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006
GEN1 - General policy for development
RUR2 - Devl. in open countryside General
CON5 - Nature conserv Species Protected
CON8 - Trees, Woods & Hedgerows Amenity Value
CONSIDERATIONS
Principle
This site is located within the countryside as identified on the proposals map of the Hart District Local Plan (as saved). Although outline consent has been granted on the adjoining land for 300 houses, the development is yet to commence.
A lawful development certificate has been granted for the siting of a caravan on site, and the barn building which is currently used for storage is located adjacent to the caravan. The site is previously developed land within the countryside as identified on the proposals map of the Hart District Local Plan (as saved). Policy RUR2 of the Hart District Local Plan states that development in the open countryside outside of the defined settlement boundaries will not be permitted unless the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that it is specifically provided for by other policies in the Local Plan, and does not have a significant effect on the character and setting of the countryside by virtue of its sitting, size and prominence in the landscape.
The Local Plan does not specifically provide for the erection of new dwellings within the countryside. In addition the Council can currently demonstrate in excess of a 5 year supply of deliverable sites, and for this reason housing policies in the Local Plan are not considered to be out of date. However, this does not prevent additional windfall sites coming forward where a scheme is considered to be sustainable in terms of the NPPF and other development plan policies, and where there is no material harm generated by the proposal i.e. the benefits of a scheme outweigh the harm. 33 One of the core principles of the NPPF is that planning should encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value. Furthermore, the Interim Housing Delivery Strategy states that development will generally be permitted outside defined settlement boundaries provided that it is on previously developed land.
In this instance the site is located directly adjacent to the defined settlement and only separated from the settlement by Watery Lane itself. Although not implemented it is also material that consent has been granted for residential development surrounding the application site (Watery Lane or Albany Park). Furthermore, the proposal would allow for the removal of the existing caravan and barn from the site. For these reasons it is considered reasonable to accept the principle of development of this countryside site for residential purposes as a departure from the development plan.
Neighbour amenity
The proposed dwellings would be set a significant distance from existing residential properties, and primary windows are proposed to be set in the front and rear elevation to avoid any direct pattern of overlooking of the adjoining land which has outline consent for housing.
Impact on ecology
The application has been submitted with an ecological report which has been reviewed by the Council's Ecologist. Subject to the mitigation measures set out in the report being completed in full the no objections are raised by the Council's Ecologist.
The proposed development would not be harmful to ecology.
Impact on parking, access and highway safety
The Council's Highways Engineer has reviewed the proposal and confirmed that the applicant should demonstrate that a large car and fire tender can negotiate the tight bend into the site, it has also been requested that the applicant shows how a refuse vehicle would be able to turn on site with the Council’s waste department confirming that they would not permit additional reversing manoeuvres which could be harmful to highway safety. This has not been provided at the time of writing the report, however details have been requested, should this be addressed before committee then details will be updated to the committee.
It is also material that in 2005 consent for a dwelling was refused due the dwellings access being onto bridleway. It is recognised since this time that a lawful development certificate was agreed for the siting of the caravan on site, however the acceptability or not of the vehicular access would not have been a consideration under the lawful development certificate. The appellant has also confirmed that when the Road Used as a Public Path (RUPP) was re classified to a bridleway in the early 1990’s the bridleway retained ‘’the same right of access to all land owners’’, it is not clear what this would mean for the application site, however given the lawful use of the site may have been for agricultural purposes at this time it is not clear that this would extend to a residential redevelopment of the application site. It is accepted that the occupants of the caravan have been using the bridleway for their vehicular access, and that there may be a fall back position for one dwelling of the size of the caravan.
However, the current proposal would result in the access being used by two five bedroom dwellings, which is a material change. Whilst the Council's Highways Engineer is not raising a highway safety concern in this regard the applicants have still not demonstrated that the site would benefit from a lawful right of vehicular access for the two new dwellings. In the absence of a vehicular access to the site the proposal would result in a significant under provision of on site parking and fail to provide a development that meets the access and parking requirements reasonably expected for a new dwelling. 34 Further comments on this matter have been received from the County Rights of Way Officer who has confirmed that this part of watery lane is a bridleway and that there are no recorded public vehicular rights over this path, and that driving a motorised vehicle on a public footpath, public bridleway or restricted byway is an offence under sections 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended). The County Rights of Way Officer has also referred to a case where a Grampian condition to ensure that no development would take place until full details of any established private vehicular rights over the public right of way had been provided. However, it would only be reasonable to place such a condition on a consent if the Planning Authority can be satisfied that it can be discharged, it has not been demonstrated that such a condition would be likely to be agreed, and this issue remains unresolved since the 2005 appeal. In the absence of a lawful vehicular access to the site the proposal would not overcome the reason that the planning inspector sited in refusing planning permission in 2005.
It has not been demonstrated that there is sufficient space within the site for large vehicles to access the site and entre in a forward gear. Furthermore, the application has not demonstrated that a lawful right of vehicular access can be achieved to the highway for these two dwellings, the proposal would therefore fail to overcome this reason for refusal of the appeal proposal and would be contrary to the objectives of Policy GEN1 and T14 of the Hart District Local Plan (as saved).
Impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBH SPA)
Saved local plan policies CON1 and CON2 relate to the Thames Basin Special Protection Area (SPA) and state that development which would adversely affect the nature conservation value of a site will only be permitted if it can be subject to conditions that will prevent damaging impacts on wildlife habitats or other natural features of importance on the site or if other material factors are sufficient to override the nature conservation interest. South East Plan policy NRM6 requires adequate measures to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects on the Thames Basin Special Protection Area (SPA).
The SPA is a network of heathland sites which are designated for their ability to provide a habitat for the internationally important bird species of woodlark, nightjar and Dartford warbler. The area is designated as a result of the Birds Directive and the European Habitats Directive and protected in the UK under the provisions set out in the Habitats Regulations. These bird species are particularly subject to disturbance from walkers, dog walkers and cat predation because they nest on or near the ground.
Natural England has indicated that it believes that within 5km of the SPA additional residential development in combination will have a significant effect on the SPA. Thus without mitigation any proposal is contrary to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. In April 2008 the Thames Basin Heaths Joint Strategic Partnership agreed a Thames Basin Heaths Delivery Framework to enable the delivery of housing in the vicinity of the SPA without that development having a significant effect on the SPA as a whole. The delivery framework is based on avoidance measures and the policy indicates that these measures can take the form of areas of open space known as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG).
The policy also states that local authorities will collect developer contributions towards mitigation measures including the provision of SANGs land and joint contributions to the funding of Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) the effects of mitigation measures across the SPA.
The Interim Avoidance Strategy sets out the Council's policy for mitigating the impact on the TBH SPA. This site is located outside of the 400 metre exclusion zone but within the 5km zone of influence where the proposal would need to secure mitigation.
The application does not secure mitigation, furthermore, Hitches Lane Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) which is the strategic SANG that could be used to mitigate the development has reached capacity. Therefore, at the time of deciding this application no mitigation is available.
35 For these reasons it is recommended that the application be refused on the grounds of the impact on the TBH SPA.
CONCLUSION
The site is located on the edge of the settlement and would allow for development which would form a logical extension of the settlement area. Furthermore the surrounding land has recently been granted consent for a comprehensive residential development. Therefore, the principle of residential development of this countryside site is accepted and therefore the recommendation is for a departure to the development plan in this regard.
However a planning appeal in 2005 was dismissed as the proposal included its sole vehicular access onto a bridleway. With the inspector stating that no convincing evidence has been produced to show that the site benefits from a lawful right of access. There has been no material change in circumstance since this time therefore the proposal would not provide an appropriate vehicular access for the development.
Furthermore, in the absence of any appropriate mitigation in relation to the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBH SPA) the proposal would fail to mitigate the impact on protected species.
RECOMMENDATION – Refuse
REASONS FOR REFUSAL
1 It has not been demonstrated that the development would have vehicular access onto the highway, in the absence of adequate access being demonstrated for this plot the proposal would result in a significant under provision of on site parking and fail to provide a development that meets the access and parking requirements reasonably expected for a new dwelling, and would be harmful to highway safety. The proposal would be contrary to the objectives of Policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan (as saved).
2 The site is located within 5km of the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which forms part of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). In the absence of any evidence that the test of no alternatives under Regulation 62 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 can be satisfied, or evidence that there are grounds of overriding public interest, the proposed development, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, would be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the SPA. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policies CON1 and CON2 in Hart District Local Plan, and policy NRM6 in the South East Plan.
INFORMATIVES
1 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance: The applicant was advised of the necessary information needed to process the application. The applicant was informed of the reasons for refusal, however the additional information provided did not overcome these issues.
36 COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 103 APPLICATION NO. 15/00823/FUL LOCATION Park Farm Bramshill Road Heckfield Hook Hampshire RG27 0LD PROPOSAL Reinstatement of former access road from Mill Lane to Heckfield Place APPLICANT Sunfair Enterprises Ltd CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 13 May 2016 APPLICATION EXPIRY 15 July 2015 WARD Hartley Wintney RECOMMENDATION Grant
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Please Note: Map is not to scale
37 Site Plan
38 Landscape Proposals
39 BACKGROUND
The application was withdrawn from the agenda of the Planning Committee meeting held on 13 April 2016 to seek amendments to the junction arrangement at Mill Lane/Odiham Road (B3349) and is brought to the Committee at the request of Councillors Southern and Crampton who wish Members to consider the potential impact of the new access road on the rural character of the area and to consider highway safety issues.
THE SITE
The application site currently forms part of Park Farm, an agricultural holding linked to the on-going hotel development at Heckfield Place. The site is located close to the western boundary of the farm and links Mill Lane with the farm track which runs between the Hotel and the complex of farm buildings to the north-east.
The site is in the countryside as defined by the Local Plan in policy RUR1 and comprises partly open fields and a plantation of trees. The land is gently undulating, rising as it nears Heckfield Place. Approximately midway is a lower area forming part of the drainage catchment area for the Whitewater River which flows through the farm from south to north about 900 metres away from the proposed access road.
Mill Lane is a single track rural lane leading to Riseley in the north-east and joining the B3349 (Reading to Odiham Road) 170 metres to the west of the proposed access road.
Heckfield Place itself is currently undergoing extensive renovation and construction works with the view to opening as a 5* hotel in the future. The Manor House, Stables and Water Tower are all Grade II listed buildings within a Grade II listed park and garden.
PROPOSAL
The application seeks planning permission to construct a new single track, asphalt road with passing places, from Mill Lane through the woodland and across the agricultural field to the north-west boundary of the Hotel site, linking to the existing internal service roads.
The new road would be 660 metres long and 3.5 metres wide with three passing/waiting places along its length each 7 metres wide. A new passing place would also be provided along Mill Lane, approximately 70 metres to the east of its junction with the B3349 and 100 metres from the entrance to the proposed new road from Mill Lane.
Within the site it is proposed to set the road down behind a landscaped 'bund' which would be planted with native hedging and trees. Automated timber gates would be positioned across the road, some 30 metres into the site from Mill Lane.
Amended plans have previously been submitted reducing the proposed number of passing places along the internal road, providing a passing place on Mill Lane and reducing the visibility splay, as well further technical reports and justification in response to comments from the Highways and Landscape Officers and local residents.
Further amended plans have subsequently been submitted indicating proposed off site highway improvement works to the junction of Mill Lane with Odiham Road in order to ensure that an HGV could pull off of the B3349 and have sufficient space available (20 metres) to ensure that if another vehicle were proceeding west along Mill Lane toward the B3349 the HGV would not project into the Odiham Road.
40 These works entail the widening of the carriageway by up to 2.1 metres to provide a 5.5 metre wide area to allow vehicles to pass before the carriageway narrowed down to 3.4 metres along the rest of the length of Mill Lane. These amended proposals have been the subject of further consultation with the expiry date for the receipt of comments being 13th May 2016.
PLANNING HISTORY
There is extensive planning history both for Park Farm and Heckfield Place.
Those applications relating to Park Farm deal mainly with the erection and alteration of the buildings in the main farm complex and have no relevance to this application.
The applications at Heckfield Place are also numerous, included many for Listed Building Consent; however the most relevant planning permissions to this application are:
08/03514/MAJOR - Change of use from residential training and conference centre to mixed hotel and residential conference centre. Approved 2009.
09/02934/FUL - Provision of an energy centre. Approved 2009
10/01861/MAJOR - Provision of an underground 'screening' room, rebuilding and alterations to the accommodation blocks, new restaurant and events room, new car parking area, revised landscaping. Approved 2010.
11/00597/FUL - Provision of an energy centre with external compound. Approved 2011
11/01757/FUL - Erection of a fitness suite and indoor pool. Approved 2011.
13/01448/FUL - Erection of two security lodges and revised access road. Approved 2013.
CONSULTEES RESPONSES
Amended plans relating to the proposed widening of Mill Lane at its junction with the B3349 Odiham Road were received on 29.04.2016 and were the subject of a further consultation exercise which ran to 13 May 2016. Details of the responses received are provided in italics below, with details of previous comments quoted afterwards:
Heckfield Parish Council – OBJECT
09.05.2016
Heckfield Parish Council has examined the plan of the proposed junction between Mill Lane and the B3349 and we are still totally opposed to the creation of this new access road into Heckfield Place.
As we have said previously, we have serious concerns about the safety of the scheme because it involves very large HGVs leaving and entering Mill Lane from the B3349 which carries fast moving traffic. These HGVs may have to cross the traffic flow to get into and out of Mill Lane and this will only add to the danger.
The new drawings finally admit that the first part of Mill Lane will have to be widened to allow an HGV to pass other vehicles. It would appear that the proposal is to make the carriageway 5.5m wide from the junction with the B3349 for a distance of some 20-30m. This is intended to allow a 12m long rigid truck to pass a delivery van in the entrance to Mill Lane.
41 When this application was first made, the Technical Note spoke of articulated trucks up to 16.5m in length making daily visits to service the biomass plant at Heckfield Place.
We cannot see how widening Mill Lane in the way that is now proposed actually makes the junction safe for the vehicles that are going to be using it every day.
Beyond its junction with the B3349, Mill Lane is just over 3m wide. An HGV can just about operate on a 3m carriageway, but it cannot pass other vehicles. The new entrance from Mill Lane into Heckfield Place is at least 200m from the junction with the B3349 and, for most of this distance, an HGV would not be able to pass any oncoming vehicle. The applicants are proposing to create a layby just past Reading Lodge, but it is easy to envisage situations where an HGV is either “trapped” while crossing the B3349 to turn into Mill Lane or is forced to wait on the main road while traffic in Mill Lane clears sufficiently to allow it to turn in.
Furthermore, the new proposals to widen the carriageway at the entrance to Mill Lane are likely to have a serious impact on Reading Lodge. The residents of Reading Lodge already have to contend with traffic on the B3349 passing very close to their property. Widening Mill Lane will reduce the size of the grass verges and this will mean that delivery traffic to and from Heckfield Place will be travelling very close to Reading Lodge’s northern boundary.
Heckfield Parish Council has opposed this application from the start because we think the changes will increase the risks to vehicles using the B3349 and Mill Lane. Were this proposal being made because of perceived dangers associated with other access routes to Heckfield Place, then we might take a different view. However, we believe the main reason for creating this new road is simply to enhance the wellbeing of the hotel’s guests without consideration for our local residents and road users alike.
We know that Hart is minded to recommend the granting of this application, but we would urge you to refuse permission on the grounds of increased risk to road users and the loss of amenity to local residents.
Previous Comments:
23.03.16
As always, Heckfield Parish Council has given careful consideration to the documents associated with this planning application. In summary, the new information has done nothing to change our view and we remain totally opposed to the proposed development.
Mill Lane is a typical country lane and is completely unsuited as a route for HGVs wanting to access Heckfield Place. The proposals show the road being doubled in width for a distance of some 200m and the new documents finally admit that Mill Lane is not appropriate for such large vehicles and that the road will have to be re-laid to deal with the weights to be carried.
Not only is Mill Lane unsuitable as an access route to Heckfield Place, the junction between Mill Lane and Odiham Road is on a bend and vehicles travelling north are pretty much unsighted until they reach the junction.
The national speed limit applies on the Odiham Road and it is a recipe for disaster to allow very large vehicles to turn right across fast moving traffic that will not see the obstacle until the last minute. We have listened to everything that the "experts" have said about such things as sightlines, splays and alignments, but nowhere has anybody acknowledged the fact that local residents are unanimously opposed to these proposals. Perhaps we are in the situation where it will take a serious accident to allow the people of Heckfield to say "We told you so". 42 We urge you to refuse permission for this development.
Highways (Internal) – NO OBJECTION
04.05.2016
The width of Mill Lane at its junction with B3349 Odiham Road has been widened to 5.5 metres over at least 20 metres, which allows a 12 metre rigid truck to turn into Mill Lane and stand clear of the B3349 Odiham Road if there is another vehicle approaching the junction along Mill Lane from the direction of the access road.
I have, in principle, no further objection to the proposal.
If the Committee are minded to approve the application, then we would seek conditions tied to the opening and use of the access road, be imposed on any permission granted.
Previous Comments:
18.03.16 - Final comments following amended plans and additional information:
Give way and centre carriageway markings should be provided at the junction with Mill Lane. The notes related to the proposed signs should be backed up with more detail (materials, sizes, x-heights, heights of signs etc'). This can be secured under condition.
The Applicant has undertaken core samples which have identified that improvements will need to be made to the carriageway construction of Mill Lane. The Applicant has set out the improvements which will need to be made to the capping layer and design thicknesses, which is acceptable.
Landscape Architect (Internal) – OBJECT
Previous Comments:
24.06.15 Lorry heights can vary but a general maximum can be assumed at 4.95m (according to government recommendation to maximise the use of the motorway and trunk road network). The proposed bund at 0.5m high with shrub and hedge planting, even if planted at larger sizes, will take many years to establish. As such the submitted measures will be insufficient to adequately mitigate the negative impact of tall commercial vehicles crossing an open countryside location that is immediately adjacent to a Grade II park and garden. These proposals will also strongly influence the setting of the park and garden and are therefore unacceptable.
Whilst the Visibility Study highlights that views of the proposed access road are limited to certain location to the NE, the intrusive and alien presence of lorries moving across the rural landscape is incongruous and sufficient to cause significant harm.
Given the above, I object to these proposals.
HCC Local Lead Flood Authority – NO COMMENT
No comments received
Environment Agency South East – NO COMMENT
Declined to comment 43 Conservation/Listed Buildings Officer (Internal) – NO OBJECTION
Previous Comments:
01.05.2015 The development of this property requires a service access, this is the most logical position for it. There would be a loss of trees and habitats though and there would be a negative impact on the setting of the assets.
Two oak five bar gates are proposed to span the 7.5m entrance. No kerb stones and a French drain. Tarmac is the main surface material, which lack some rural quality. The road is proposed to be screened by native woodland planting, where it is currently open. Why is a fence proposed around this woodland planting and what style of fencing?
Overall, this is the best if not only location for this road. It will be disruptive to the setting and it will be harmful. In order to mitigate the harm and turn it to enhance the setting, I would suggest reducing the ground level to sink the road and therefore reduce the height/impact of the road and traffic. Secondly, have a more rural natural top coat to the road, one that merges with the landscape, supports the traffic and is maintained in the future.
05.06.15 No additional comments. No objection.
NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS
Four additional representations, from three households, have been received from local residents in respect of the amended plans. The Planning Department has also been provided with a copy of a letter from an occupier of Riseley Mill which has been sent direct to Planning Committee Members.
The concerns raised relate to:
- The proposal would damage the charming character of Mill Lane; - The claim the proposal represents ‘reinstatement’ is dangerous and misleading and the old entrance route was never anything more than a track used by coach and horses; - The access from the Odiham Road is dangerous and the proposal would result in more air pollution; - Proposals increase the size of vehicles that could potentially use the new access, thereby increasing highway danger; - The proposed changes do not take into account the blind corner on the Odiham Road when approaching Mill Lane from the south.
Previous Comments:
Representations from 8 local residents were received - as there have been a couple of re-consultations as additional information has been received, several residents have written more than once.
The main issues of concern are:
- Highway safety and the unsuitability of Mill Lane for HGVs - Junction of Mill Lane with the B3349 is dangerous, with poor sight lines and the site of several accidents and near-misses, especially in winter when the road becomes slippery with black ice. Vehicles coming south have a sharp turn into a blind spot.
44 - Mill Lane used frequently by walkers, cyclists and riders, this will now become hazardous with increase in traffic and large vehicles in particular. - There is no evidence of a former road to Heckfield Place along this route; in any event an asphalt surface is very different to an historic track - Will alter the rural character of Mill Lane - Heckfield Place has an existing, safe access from the Bramshill Road, with room to separate guests and service vehicles, it doesn't need another one. This should have been thought of at the beginning. - Increase in traffic will be dangerous for entering and leaving other properties along Mill Lane. - Lorries will damage the trees along the verge, resulting in broken branches and blockages along Mill Lane - Adverse impact on wild life, destruction of woodland - Heckfield Place has the backing to influence the decision - Would have objected to the other applications if we had known about this proposal. - If vehicles turn right to get to Swallowfield, they will get stuck on the sharp bends and as the road narrows, resulting in damaged trees, drainage ditches and verges. - Extra signage will be required, which is already excessive and spoils the rural quality of the area. - The need to improve safety at the junction will result in widening Mill Lane to a two track road, with lighting and signage all spoiling this rural lane. - If approved, there should be a no left turn from Reading Road into Mill Lane coming south and no right turn from the new road onto Mill Lane. - Increased problems with drainage from new hard surfaces. - Other hotels, Highfield Park and Tylney Park both use the same access road for staff/deliveries and guests. - Increased pollution from lorries - especially when waiting for the gates to open
POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES
Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006
GEN1 - General Policy for Development
GEN6 - Policy for Noisy/Un-neighbourly Development
GEN11 - Areas Affected by Flooding or Poor Drainage
RUR1 - Definition of Areas Covered by RUR Policies
RUR2 - Development in the Open Countryside - General
RUR3 - Development in the Open Countryside - Control
RUR13 - Business in Open Countryside
CON12 - Historic Parks and Gardens
CON17 - Listed Buildings and Buildings of Local Interest – Extension or Alteration
T15 - Development Requiring New or Improved Access
South East Plan 2006 – 2026
NRM6 - Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area 45 CONSIDERATIONS
Principle As the property lies outside any settlement boundary as defined by saved policy RUR1 of the Local Plan, development is only allowed under saved policy RUR2 if it is specifically provided for by other policies in the Local Plan and there is no significant harm to the character and setting of the countryside.
In this instance the private road is to serve the new hotel at Heckfield Place and is therefore considered ancillary to that business use. Heckfield Place has along established lawful use, formerly as a training and conference centre and latterly as a hotel/conference centre - the expansion of the business use is allowed under saved policy RUR13. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) supports a prosperous rural economy, in paragraph 28, advising LPAs to 'support the sustainable growth of and expansion of all types of business and enterprise.' It is therefore considered that the principle of a new access road would be acceptable, subject to the criteria identified in the relevant LP policies and the NPPF.
The main concerns of neighbours and the Parish Council relate to highway safety and the impact on the rural character of the area, together with queries about the historic precedent, the need for a new road and why was it not thought of before.
The provision of an energy centre was first approved in 2009 when it was anticipated that: 'Deliveries would take place on average once a week and the existing access to the car park would be used.' However as works have progressed (witness the numerous applications) and the applicants aspirations for the site have evolved, this car park and access to it no longer exists. The energy requirements have increased as new elements have been approved, e.g. for the fitness suite, approved in 2011, such that deliveries now need to be daily not weekly. Whilst an overall development strategy at the outset would have been desirable, so that all the impacts of each inter-related element could have been assessed, this planning application must be determined on its merits in the current circumstances.
Justification, need
The new road would enable the vehicles of guests and those of staff and deliveries to be separated. Pre- application discussions with Highways indicated that separating the traffic in this way would be a sensible and desirable approach. The main service area, which includes the energy centre, is at the north-west boundary of the Heckfield Place site. The energy centre would run on bio fuel which would require daily deliveries by HGV's. A back-up compound of LPG tanks would also require deliveries by HGV, although not as frequently. It is to provide easy, direct access to the energy centre and adjacent compound for the HGVs which are the main requirement and to limit the impact of these vehicles on the setting of the heritage assets.
Currently the main access road off Reading Road meanders through the site before approaching the former Manor House. The road branches off just before the Manor House forecourt, with a sharp left turn between a couple of mature trees towards the staff car park and energy centre and another turning to the right towards the guest car park. The sharp left turn on this single track driveway is not particularly suitable for a HGV, and although primarily for deliveries of the bio fuel/LPG, the new driveway would also be used for other deliveries and staff, further reducing the number of traffic movements in front of the Manor House and within the historic park. It is therefore considered that separating the delivery and staff vehicles from guests would be desirable and justified.
46 Impact on the rural character and the landscape
Saved policy GEN1(i) and (ix) require development to be in keeping with the character of the area and those involving highway improvements should not be detrimental to the rural character and setting of the rural lanes. Saved policy RUR2 requires that development that is provided for under other policies should not have an adverse impact on the appearance of the countryside. Saved policy RUR3 requires development that is provided for in other policies should be satisfactorily landscaped to reduce its impact on the countryside. These policies are broadly supported by the NPPF which advises LPA's to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside (para. 17) and to seek to protect and enhance valued landscapes (para. 109).
The access road would be constructed as narrow as possible to accommodate HGVs (3.5 metres), without kerbstones and with three passing places at appropriate intervals. The route would be along the western boundary of Park Farm which is marked with trees and undergrowth. Approximately half the route is through a wooded plantation of mainly birch trees and the rest would be set down slightly behind a bund to which would be added trees and hedgerow plants.
The Landscape Officer raised objections to the initial proposal commenting that the proposed landscaping would be inadequate to mitigate against the impact of lorries in the landscape - however there were no objections to the loss of the trees through the woodland.
A Visibility Study was submitted with the application to show views from the public footpath and bridle way, some 900 metres to the east. This shows that cars and vans would be barely discernible across the fields from the ROWs due to the distance and undulating landform. HGVs and lorries would be more obvious, however these would be infrequent, with only 5-10 delivery vehicles anticipated per day, only one or two of which would be high sided HGVs.
A vehicle travelling at 10mph would take 2.25 minutes to travel along the road from Mill Lane to Heckfield Place, half of the journey would be through existing woodland and the rest of the route would have additional planting. Therefore the chances of spotting a lorry crossing the field are remote. Additional information about the proposed landscaping was received, confirming the percentage mix of species of trees (alder, birch and oak) and for the under storey (blackthorn, hawthorn, hazel). The trees would be planted at a height of 1.7 metre – 2 metres, which together with the bund would be high enough to screen all but the highest vehicle immediately and most vehicles when fully established and mature. Together with the existing trees along the western boundary, the road would eventually become a rural lane overhung with a canopy of trees from both sides.
The bell mouth of the proposed new road to Mill Lane would be 15 metres wide, reducing to 3.5 metres over a distance of 15 metres. It is considered necessary to allow two vehicles to pass/wait before moving onto the single track section. However, a wider road at junctions is usual, especially on rural roads which are generally narrow and where a wide bell mouth is essential for highway safety and to prevent turning vehicles overhanging the carriageway. Indeed Mill Lane where it joins the B3349 has an apron 23 metres wide, gradually reducing to its single track width over a distance of 15 metres. So it can be seen that although the new road will create a more open aspect at this point, it would not be unusually wide and has been reduced to the minimum required for safe manoeuvring. It would affect only a very small section of the overall length of Mill Lane and once the vegetation has regenerated following the construction works, would not be an unacceptably intrusive feature in the landscape.
A speed survey was undertaken which confirmed that a visibility splay of 2 metres x 90 metres would be required. This could be achieved without the loss of any trees. Some trees would be lost through the plantation, but the route has been chosen to avoid the loss of any significant trees. Three additional oak trees would be planted in compensation, close to the entrance.
47 It is therefore considered that overall; the creation of a new access road would not have an unacceptable impact on the rural character of Mill Lane or the wider landscape.
Impact on the heritage assets
Saved policy CON12 requires that development should not have an adverse impact on historic parks and gardens. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that great weight should be given to the conservation of a heritage asset (para.132). Significance can be harmed by development within its setting (para 132).
The field where the access road is proposed is adjacent to Heckfield Place, a grade II listed building, and the listed park and garden. The land once formed part of the Heckfield Place Estate, as shown on the map of 1895. Park Farm is labelled as 'Home Farm' on the 1895 map, so the field which is the subject of this application, is unlikely to have once formed part of the historic parkland.
Large country houses traditionally had more than one entrance driveway, each with its own lodge. In this case, there were five lodges, each leading in a different direction out from the Manor House, only one of which, Church Lodge is still within the curtilage and same ownership as Heckfield Place. Three of the driveways have gradually been obliterated as the lodges have been sold into private ownership and only two remain - the existing main entrance past Church Lodge and the track (also a ROW) next to Bramshill Lodge which leads to Park Farm and then loops back to the Manor House. On the 1895 map a driveway is shown from the Manor House to the junction of Mill Lane and Odiham Road - to Reading Lodge. Therefore, although it may be slightly disingenuous to claim that the road is a 're-instatement', there is a clear historic precedent for having more than one entrance to Heckfield Place and in the general direction of Mill Lane.
The Conservation Officer raised no objections to the principle of the development, considering this to be the most logical place for a service road, but recommended some changes in order to mitigate the potential harm to the setting of the heritage assets. However, sinking the road further into the ground would cause significant drainage problems as the road would be lower than the surrounding catchment area for the River Whitewater and the more traditional driveway surfaces of gravel/bonded gravel would not be strong enough to support HGV's.
The new road would not be visible from any of the listed buildings/curtilage listed structures within the historic park, due to existing buildings and those under construction. It would lead to the energy centre and 'back of house' areas and it is in the interests of the Hotel to screen the road and the consequent traffic from view in order to portray the 'Country House' and 'rural idyll' experience to guests.
It is considered that the asphalt/tarmac proposed would eventually ‘grey’ and several roads within the park, to which the road will link, are also constructed of black tarmac. It is, therefore, considered that this would be no more harmful to the setting of the listed building than those within the park around the Manor House.
Overall it is considered that removing the delivery vehicles and HGVs from the historic park and the close proximity of the listed buildings would outweigh the minimal harm to their setting associated with the new road - which has an historic precedent.
Highway Safety
Saved policy T15(ii) requires that new development should not adversely affect the safety and character of the non-strategic road network. Saved policy GEN1(viii) requires development not to cause material harm to highway safety.
48 As stated already, the anticipated number of traffic movements would be in the region of 50-60 per day, comprising mainly of cars driven by staff and light 'Transit' type delivery vans with less deliveries at weekends and 1 HGV per day.
All comments received from neighbours raise the issue of road safety - claiming that the B3349 is dangerous and the site of several accidents, including 2 fatalities. However the highways report submitted with the application analysed the data available and none of the accidents were attributed to the layout of this junction and all took place some distance from it. The Council's Highway Officer agreed with the findings of the report, in that the sight lines and general visibility and accessibility at this junction are acceptable.
However, he did raise concerns about the possibility of a HGV straddling the carriageway whilst waiting for vehicles coming up Mill Lane to reach the wider part of the road. To overcome these concerns, two options were proposed, increasing the depth of the bell mouth of Mill Lane at the junction to accommodate the length of an HGV or to provide a passing place on Mill Lane between the new road and the junction.
Hence, amended plans were initially submitted to include a passing place on the south side of Mill Lane approximately 60 metres from the junction with Odiham Road. As Mill Lane is straight for a distance of some 500 metres, there is excellent visibility along Mill Lane from the junction and vice-versa. A passing place in the proposed location would improve the current situation where, by their own admission, the applicants confirm that vehicles often have to pull onto the verges to allow other vehicles to pass, damaging the drainage ditches. Vehicles would of course also be able to pull into the bell mouth of the new road to allow vehicles to pass, further improving the current situation.
Following further consideration of the highway safety issues it was determined that although the likelihood of large vehicles travelling
Also of concern was the suitability of Mill Lane for carrying HGV traffic. Further surveys have been undertaken and core samples taken. These have concluded that Mill Lane would need to be reinforced. The applicant has indicated that they would be willing to enter into a Section 278 agreement with the Highway Authority to do carry out these works and this could be secured by condition.
Consequently the Highway's Officer now has no objections to the scheme (subject to conditions).
Also of concern was the prospect of vehicles turning right down Mill Lane towards Riseley where a couple of sharp bends make the road unsuitable for HGV's. However, the new road has been designed to make turning in this direction difficult and it is also proposed to have timber bollards to encourage traffic to turn left, together with appropriate signage. The bollards would also protect the verges and ditches from damage. Some indication of how traffic would be managed has been provided in the Highways Report, but this could form the basis of a traffic management plan to ensure all users of the new road are aware of the unsuitability of Mill Lane to the east of the access. Signage and road markings would also need to be provided, but in order to ensure that this would not be intrusive, details would need to be submitted for approval.
A traffic survey was undertaken, recording the traffic movements over a 7-day period. These are analysed in the Highways Report. This found there was an average of 83 vehicle movements on weekdays of which 90% (75) were during the 12 hour period 07.00-19.00hrs. There was not a marked peak in traffic during the usual rush hours, and there were only 5 HGVs recorded in the whole 7 day period. Conflicting 2-way traffic was infrequent.
The new road would increase the traffic movements by some 80%, (75 + 60 = 135) an average of 11 movements per hour or 1 every 5.5 minutes, but only for a relatively short stretch of 170 metres. 49 The average speed recorded was 30 mph. At this speed it would take a vehicle less than 30 seconds to traverse Mill Lane from the junction with the Odiham Road to the new access road. The chance of conflict between vehicles, such that Mill Lane would become hazardous is therefore considered to be slight. It is therefore considered that the increase in traffic would not significantly affect highway safety or the character of Mill Lane.
Concerns about the safety of walkers, cyclists and riders, who use Mill Lane have also been raised, although the Highways Report notes that pedestrians usually stand aside on the verge, and for riders and cyclists, there would be two new passing places in the short stretch of road affected. Walking at 3mph, it would take just 2.5 minutes to cover the 170 metres affected - with average traffic movements still less than one per 5 minutes, the probability of conflict is still reasonably low. It should also be noted that the recorded traffic movements at weekends - when walkers are most likely to be out and about - were approximately half that of weekdays (1 movement every 8 minutes) and the majority of Mill Lane, some 1.2 kilometres to Riseley Mill and a further 1.3 kilometres to Riseley village would be unaffected by the increase in traffic.
Therefore subject to conditions, it is considered that the proposal would not result in an adverse impact on highway safety and subject to conditions would comply with the requirements of saved policy T15.
Neighbour amenity
Saved policy GEN6 allows development which would not create or intensify noisy or noxious uses or types of traffic unsuited to the local area. Saved policy GEN1(ii) and (viii) requires development to avoid material loss of amenity to existing uses by virtue of noise, disturbance, fumes, dust, pollution or traffic generation and do not give rise to traffic flows which could cause material harm to the amenities of nearby properties.
The only neighbour past which the extra traffic would pass is Reading Lodge. This property is located at the corner of Mill Lane and Odiham Road and is therefore already subject to considerable traffic noise/pollution from the B3349. The new access road would be over 100 metres from Reading Lodge with extensive woodland in between. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of neighbour amenity.
Drainage
The site is within Flood Risk Zone 1, which is the lowest flood risk, but as the site area exceeds 1hectare, a Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted which includes various measures to alleviate any increased risk of flooding or water run-off. The road levels are such that water would be captured at the lowest points (before it meets Mill Lane) and directed into existing and new ditches/drainage pipes which ultimately discharge into the River Whitewater. French drains at the side of the level stretches of the new road would absorb water in a gradual manner into the land around. Additional trees and vegetation will also assist in using water and slowing any water flows.
Both the Environment Agency and the Lead Local Flood Authority have declined to comment on the application, but provided the road is constructed in accordance with these measures and existing ditches are maintained and kept flowing freely, there should be no additional risk of flooding from this scheme.
Other matters
No works are proposed to the junction of Mill lane with Odiham Road or to Mill Lane itself apart from re-laying the surface - none of the plans submitted include the widening of Mill Lane.
Although there are hotels in the area that have a single access, there are other examples where there are two. 50 Whether deliveries and staff to the Hotel when it opens use the new road or the existing, the overall levels of traffic movement on the local road network will remain the same - as will the level of exhaust fumes.
The energy centre is virtually complete and will require regular deliveries of biofuel. This is an approach to energy provision which is encouraged in the NPPF as biofuel is a renewable source of energy and should help to reduce the overall carbon footprint of the Hotel.
CONCLUSION
There will be an impact on the landscape and heritage assets but this would not be so significant or harmful as to outweigh the benefits of allowing direct access of staff and deliveries to the energy centre and staff car park. There would be no adverse impact on highway safety, subject to a traffic management plan - indeed there would be public benefits by the provision of two passing places where currently there are none, reducing the potential for damage to the verge and drainage ditches. Therefore, subject to conditions requiring adequate landscaping and details of the bollards, signage and any lighting, and compliance with the drainage report, it is considered that the proposal would comply with the relevant saved policies of the Local Plan and advice in the NPPF.
RECOMMENDATION - Grant
CONDITIONS
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
2 No development shall take place until further details of soft landscape have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Details shall include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant establishment), schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes and proposed densities and to include proposals for landscaping the junction of the new road with Mill Lane.
Details shall further include a proposed timetable for planting and details of the protective fencing.
Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscaping and to satisfy saved policies GEN1 and RUR3 of the Hart District Local Plan.
3 Landscaping works shall be fully carried out in accordance with the approved details, including the approved timetable, and to a reasonable standard in accordance with the relevant provisions of appropriate British Standards or other recognised codes of good practice. The Council shall be notified in writing of the completion of the scheme or any agreed phase of such scheme.
Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years after approved completion, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of similar species, size and number as originally approved, unless the Council gives its written consent to any variation.
51 Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscaping and to satisfy saved policies GEN1 and RUR3 of the Hart District Local Plan.
4 No work shall take place until details of the means of protection, including method statements where appropriate, for all trees, hedges, hedgerows and shrubs on site, unless indicated as being removed, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The trees, hedges, hedgerows and shrubs shall be protected in accordance with the approved details for the duration of works on the site and retained for at least five years following occupation of the approved development, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Any such vegetation immediately adjoining the site shall be protected on the site in a similar manner for the duration of works on the site.
Any such vegetation removed without the Local Planning Authority's consent, or which die or become, in the Authority's opinion, seriously damaged or otherwise defective during such period shall be replaced and/or shall receive remedial action as required by the Authority. Such works shall be implemented as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, replacement planting shall be implemented by not later than the end of the following planting season, with planting of such size and species and in such number and positions as may be agreed with the Authority in writing.
Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing vegetation and to satisfy saved policies GEN1 and RUR3 of the Hart District Local Plan.
5 The new road hereby approved shall not be used for staff/deliveries until a transport management plan to include provisions for the management of deliveries and staff arrivals/departures and measures to discourage the use of Mill Lane as an alternative to the B3349 has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the management plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect the rural character of Mill Lane and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan.
6 No development shall take place until details of measures to be taken to prevent mud and spoil from vehicles leaving the site during the construction works being deposited on the public highway and measures to be taken for the parking and turning on site of operatives and construction vehicles during the construction period have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The agreed measures shall be fully implemented before the development commences. Such measures shall be retained throughout the duration of the construction period.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to satisfy saved policy GEN 1 in the Hart District Local Plan.
7 Before the road hereby approved is operational, visibility splays of 2m by 90m splays have been provided at the junction of the access road with the public highway and thereafter shall be kept free of obstacles 0.6m above the adjacent highway.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan.
8 Before the road hereby approved is operational, details of the proposed road signs, markings and bollards shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The signs, markings and bollards shall be installed/carried out in accordance with the approved details.
52
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and the character of the area and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan.
9 Before the new road hereby approved is operational, the electronic gates with keypad entry, as shown on drawing 14.054 PL.001 P07, shall be installed and retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan.
10 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no lighting shall be installed along the new road or at the access to the public highway.
Reason: To prevent unnecessary light spillage into the surrounding countryside and to comply with saved Policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.
11 Before development commences the Flood Risk Assessment and recommendations therein by Cole Easdon Consultants Ltd, dated April 2015 shall be updated to include the revised road layout and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To reduce the risk of surface water flooding and to comply with saved Policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.
12 No development shall commence until a legal agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 has been completed with Hampshire Highways to improve the road surface of Mill Lane from the new access to the junction with Odiham Road to their satisfaction. The Local Authority shall be notified when the agreement has been completed.
Reason: To ensure the suitability of Mill Lane for the additional traffic and in the interests of highway safety.
13 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: TF.1585.GA.035 Rev C, TF.1585.GA.036 Rev A, 3361/20/01 Rev G, 3361/20/02 Rev D, 3361/20/03 Rev D, 3361/20/04 Rev A, 3361/SK301 Rev A and 14.054 Pl.001 Rev P08
Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.
14 Before the access road is brought into use, or the access road is constructed from Mill Lane, or construction vehicles access Heckfield Place to construct the access road, the junction and road arrangement as detailed on drawing number 3361/SK301 Rev. A, along with the passing place on Mill Lane, is to be constructed and open for operation.
Reason: To maintain the safe operation of the highway network by ensuring large service vehicles, or construction traffic, that need to access Heckfield Park can enter Mill Lane from the B3349 Odiham Road and stand clear of the B3349 should another vehicle be travelling along Mill Lane towards the B3349, and to accord with the requirements of 'saved' policies T14 and T15 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 and First Alterations to the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006.
53 15 Before the access road is brought into use, or the access road is constructed from Mill Lane, or construction vehicles access Heckfield Place to construct the access road, overhanging branches that are lower than 5 metres from the road level are to be removed.
Reason: To maintain the safe operation of the highway network and safe passage of all users from this new access, overhanging branches within a height of 5 metres of the road surface are to be removed to allow large goods vehicle to travel along the Mill Lane without hitting tree branches and weakening them so they subsequently fall or are knocked into the carriageway endangering other road users, and to accord with the requirements of 'saved' policies T14 and T15 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 and First Alterations to the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006.
INFORMATIVES
1 Works affecting the highway need consent from the Area Surveyor, please contact Hampshire Highways on 0845 850 4422.
2 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance the applicant was advised of the necessary information needed to process the application and, once received, the application was acceptable and no further engagement with the applicant was required.
3 The plans which accompany the Flood Risk Assessment and the Technical report, both prepared by Cole Easdon, have not been updated to show the latest, approved road layout and do not form part of this consent.
54 PLANNING COMMITTEE
Date and Time: Wednesday, 25 May 2016
Place: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Fleet
COUNCILLORS
Ambler (Chairman)
Billings, Blewett, Cockarill, Crampton (substitute Southern), Forster (substitute Woods), Gorys, Morris, Oliver, Parker (substitute Wheale),
In Attendance: Councillor Gray
Officers: Nick Steevens Head of Regulatory Services Emma Whittaker Planning Manager Christine Tetlow Development Management Team Leader Chris French Senior Planning Officer Kuldip Channa Shared Legal Services Alison Cottrell Committee Services
1 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the meeting held on 13 April 2016 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.
2 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies had been received from Councillors Axam (substitute Councillor Radley JE), Councillor Southern (substitute Councillor Crampton), Councillor Wheale (substitute Councillor Parker) and Councillor Woods (substitute Councillor Forster).
3 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman had no announcements.
The Planning Manager circulated a Briefing Note in relation to Annual Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space Monitoring and answered questions from members in relation to this.
Members were also reminded that the Planning Training was taking place on 1 June 2016 but that an alternative training date was being looked at for those that were unable to attend. Members were advised that if they did not attend training they would be unable to sit on the Planning Committee and that untrained Councillors were also unable to substitute for a Planning Committee member.
PL.157
4 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Gorys indicated that he had a personal, but not prejudicial, interest in Item 101 as he had held a Chairman’s function at the We Restaurant.
5 ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN
Councillor Cockarill was elected as Vice Chairman.
6 TO APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE PLANNING (ENFORCEMENT) SUB COMMITTEE
The following members of the Planning (Enforcement) Sub Committee were agreed:
Councillors Blewett, Oliver, Southern and Woods
7 TO APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE PLANNING (MAJOR SITES) SUB COMMITTEE
The following members of the Planning (Major Sites) Sub Committee were agreed:
Councillors Axam, Billings, Gorys and Morris.
8 TO APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE WORKING PARTY
The following members to sit on the Planning Committee Working Party were agreed:
Councillors Ambler, Cockarill, Morris, Radley and Kennett (ex officio).
9 TO APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE QEB TRANSPORT STEERING GROUP
1. Councillor Forster (ex officio as Portfolio Holder for Environment and Technical Services) 2. Councillor Radley - District Councillor from Church Crookham East Ward. 3. Councillor Ambler - District Councillor from Church Crookham West Ward.
10 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
The Addendum was circulated and the updated information accepted. The applications set out in the accompanying schedule were considered and decisions made as shown.
The meeting closed at 9.15 pm
PL.158
HART DISTRICT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Decisions / Recommendations – 25 May 2016
ITEM 101 – 15/02915/FUL - 329 Fleet Road, Fleet Hampshire, GU51 3BU.
Demolition of Nos. 329-331 Fleet Road and erection of four storey hotel containing 71 bedrooms with parking for 39 cars.
The Chairman agreed that Councillor Gray could speak in support of the application.
Members considered:
• Ownership of the gardens that were going to be encompassed within the development. • Whether the underground parking effectively made the building a five storey building rather than four. • That the ground floor and mezzanine level are reduced in height. • Where the bin store is located in the undercroft parking area and whether the bin lorry can turn satisfactorily. • Whether there is enough height to allow a bin lorry to access the bin storage area. • With the height of the undercroft being 2 metres, whether or not the swept path analysis was correct. • Whether or not there is enough space for a lorry and a car to pass on the access way in and out of the car parking / bin storage area. • The effect that this access way will have on the residents of Woodman Court. • Whether anyone would be made homeless in order for this development to take place. • That there was only one residential flat that would be affected, this being used as staff accommodation or a rest area for staff working in the restaurants below. • That whilst there is only one flat being utilised as accommodation, that the flats are C3 dwellings. • That it is unlawful to put a condition on the flats in relation to their use. • The scale and character of the proposed development and the impact it would have on properties in Albert Street by overlooking. • The loss of listed buildings/shopfronts and the impact this would have on the street scene. Whether or not the development should be more in character with the street scene thus preserving the heritage of the area. • That the applicant for this development is the landowner and that whilst the applicant has been in discussions with Holiday Inn, he does not have an agreement with them until he gets his application granted. • Whether or not there are any permitted development rights. • The occupancy of 325 Fleet Road and that the accommodation and kitchen is used by staff as restrooms or somewhere to stay overnight. • Whether or not any marketing for the hotel had taken place and whether it was felt that there was a demand for this type of hotel in this area. • Whether or not the applicant had been in discussions with Fleet Town Council before he submitted his application. PL.159
• That the town is in need of investment and development and whether this application would support the regeneration of the area. • The effect on the residents renting the properties who were to lose part of their gardens to the development. • The impact of the proposed development on the flats if they were being used as residential flats. • The access way onto Albert Street and the numbers and types of vehicles likely to be using this – lorries for refuse collection, linen collection and delivery, food delivery. • Whether or not the access way needs to be re-thought. • That clarification for delivery arrangements need to be sought. • The height and look of the proposed building in relation to nearby buildings. • Whether or not the overall scale, design and massing is acceptable. • The number of car parking spaces in relation to the number of rooms and whether or not the car parking could be handled by a condition.
RECOMMENDATION - Refuse
REASONS FOR REFUSAL
1 The proposed development by reason of the height, bulk and scale in relation to adjoining properties would result in an unduly dominant form of development harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding street scenes. The proposal would be contrary to the objectives of Policy GEN1 and guidance contained in the NPPF in this regard.
2 The proposed development by reason of the height, bulk and massing in close proximity to neighbouring windows within the flats above 325 and 327 Fleet Road would result in an overbearing impact and loss of light to these windows and would be harmful to the amenities afforded by occupants of these properties. The proposal would be contrary to the objectives of Policy GEN1 and guidance contained in the NPPF in this regard.
3 The proposed development by reason of the height, bulk and depth in close proximity to neighbouring windows above 333 Fleet Road would result in an overbearing impact harmful to the amenities afforded by occupants of these properties. The proposal would be contrary to the objectives of Policy GEN1 and guidance contained in the NPPF in this regard.
4 The proposed development by reason of the height, bulk and massing and position in relation to the rear gardens of 156 to 152 Albert Street would result in an overbearing impact to the rear gardens of these properties. To the detriment of the amenities of occupants of these properties. The proposal would be contrary to the objectives of Policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan and guidance contained in the NPPF in this regard.
PL.160
INFORMATIVES
1 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance:
o The applicant was advised of the necessary information needed to process the application.
o The applicant was provided with pre-application advice. However, the application did not follow the recommendations of that advice and the proposal is unacceptable for the reasons given above.
o The applicant was advised of the issues relating to the impact on character and residential amenities during the processing of the application but declined to submit amended plans to address these concerns. Consequently the proposal is unacceptable for the reasons given above.
o Please note that the current parking layout does not appear to accommodate adequate turning facilities for large vehicles due to the height of the undercroft. Any revised application would need to deal with this issue.
Notes: Speaking on behalf of Fleet Town Council: Councillor Bob Schofield Speaking for the application: Neil Davis of Davis Town Planning Limited. Councillor Gray spoke in support of the application.
Site Visit took place on the 24 May 2016 – Councillors Morris, Gorys, Cockarill, Oliver, Parker and Axam attended.
Councillor Forster visited the site independently.
Mr Steevens left the meeting at the conclusion of this item.
Item 102 - 16/00514/FUL The Barn, Watery Lane, Church Crookham, Fleet, GU52 0RN.
This application was deferred and was not debated.
Item 103 - 15/00923/FUL – Park Farm, Bramshill Road, Heckfield, Hook, Hampshire, RG27 0LD.
Reinstatement of former access road from Mill Lane to Heckfield Place.
Members considered:-
• Road safety and the sight lines on B3349 at the junction with Mill Lane. • The camber of the road and how this affected the line that vehicles would take. • The type of vehicles using the proposed road and the impact this will have on local residents and the environment. PL.161
• The number of vehicle movements currently and the number of potential vehicle movements per day should the access road be reinstated. • That whilst this is an application for a reinstatement of a road, the road was probably in place at least 100 years ago. • The impact of the extra traffic on Reading Lodge. • That Reading Lodge backs onto the Odiham Road. • That the proposed access road will cut through open countryside. • The times that shifts would start and finish at the Hotel and therefore when staff would be arriving at and leaving. • Whether or not the road was necessary and whether the application was justified. • If there was only one road access road to the hotel, whether or not interaction between staff and guests would cause harm. • That the proposed new road would allow a large lorry to deliver biofuel to the hotel. • The impact on the countryside and the location of the access. • That a site visit had taken place last month.
RECOMMENDATION - Refuse
Insufficient justification has been provided to satisfy the Council that the proposed access road from Mill Lane to Heckfield Place, which will cause demonstrable harm to the landscape and character of the open countryside which is immediately adjacent to the Heckfield Place Historic Park and Garden, is necessary given the harm that it will cause. The benefits suggested by rerouting traffic away from the immediate setting of the listed building (Heckfield Place) do not outweigh the harm to the countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved Local Plan Policies GEN1, RUR2 and RUR13.
Notes: Speaking on Behalf of Heckfield Parish Council – a statement from the Chairman of Heckfield Parish Council was read out by the Chairman. Speaking against the application: Anthony F Bushell Speaking for the application: Thomas Rumble – Woolf Bond Planning
A site visit took place last month.
PL.162