Item No.: 02

The information, recommendations, and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.

PROPOSAL Erection of 17 dwellings on land at corner of Fullers Road, and A325 (Additional/Amended information received 03/10/2014). LOCATION: Land West of Linden, Fullers Road, Rowledge, REFERENCE : 50463 PARISH: APPLICANT: Bewley Homes Plc CONSULTATION EXPIRY : 20 November 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY : 03 October 2014 COUNCILLOR: Cllr K Carter SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL

This application has been included on the agenda as it is a departure from the adopted policies of the Local Plan and is being considered under the Interim Housing Policy Statement.

Site and Development

Application site The site occupies a prominent corner position where Fullers Road, which runs to the north, meets the A325 which runs along its western boundary. The site extends to 0.74ha, roughly square in shape, and is dominated by a dense thicket of small trees and bushes which collectively add to the established character of the local area. The site is located at the bottom of a dip in the A325 and, consequently, ensures the land is highly visible.

The site falls outside the settlement policy boundary (SPB) but directly adjoins it to the east, which comprises, primarily single storey dwellings, to the north and east of the site in a linear form fronting Fullers Road. 'Linden', the property closest to the site to the east, is a detached bungalow. A stream forms the southern boundary of the site beyond which lies open fields and the South Downs National Park. More immediately, across the A325 to the west, lies the boundary of the South Downs National Park. Properties fronting the A325 to the north are generally single storey, the only exception being a pair of semi- detached houses that are located on the western side of the main road.

Proposed development The full application is for 17 dwellings with associated open space, car parking and access off Fullers Road to the north.

During the course of the application additional/amended information has been provided by the applicant to address the comments raised by statutory consultees. The additional information has included:

• Response to the County Ecologist's concerns • Response to comments raised by the Council's Landscape Officer and SDNP Link Officer • Submission of a Road Safety Audit • Submission of a parking layout to accommodate 4 additional spaces • Minor re-siting of some of the plots • Reduction in ridge heights • Reinforced landscaping on boundary with A325

The main proposals are:

• Application seeks full permission for 17 units with associated open space, car parking and access road. • Promoted under the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement (IHPS) • 10 market units, 7 affordable units • Density of 23dph • Height of buildings: 7.2m - 8.8m • Access from Fullers Road • Open market housing: 4 x 2 bed; 2 x 3 bed; 4 x 4 bed • Affordable housing: 4 x 2 bed; 3 x 3 bed

The application is also supported by detailed reports, including;

• Design and Access Statement • Planning Statement • Ecological Appraisal • Statement of Community Involvement • Drainage & Utilities Investigation Report • Code for Sustainable Homes Report • Arboricultural Impact assessment/Tree Report • Landscape Specification • Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment • Noise Assessment • Highway Statement/Road Safety Audit • Energy Statement • Desk Study, Site Investigation & Risk Assessment Report

Relevant Planning History

None relevant

Development Plan Policies and Proposals

East District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014)

CP1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development CP2 - Spatial Strategy CP10 - Spatial strategy for housing CP11 - Housing tenure, type and mix CP13 - Affordable housing on residential development sites CP16 - Protection and provision of social infrastructure CP18 - Provision of open space, sport and recreation and built facilities CP19 - Development in the countryside CP20 - Landscape CP21 - Biodiversity CP24 - Sustainable construction CP25 - Flood Risk CP26 - Water resources/ water quality CP27 - Pollution CP28 - Green Infrastructure CP29 - Design CP30 - Historic Environment CP31 - Transport CP32 - Infrastructure

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (2006)

H14 - Other Housing Outside Settlement Policy Boundaries T3 - Pedestrians and Cyclists T4 - Protection of Public Footpaths HE17 - Archaeological & Ancient Monuments P7 - Contaminated Land

Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The NPPF was published in March 2012 and came into force with immediate effect. At the heart of it is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It states that the development plan is the starting point for consideration of planning applications, and planning applications must be determined in accordance with it, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.” (paragraph 49). Housing supply is addressed later in this report.

Binsted Parish Plan 2010

Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments

Environment Agency - Having screened the planning application with regard to the low risk of the development type and location of the proposal, we have no comments to make.

Natural - No objection.

Thames Water - No objection, but recommends informatives.

South Downs National Park Authority - Initial comments:

"Any development on this site would not be welcomed by the South Downs National Park Authority. The site is outside the Settlement Policy boundary and directly opposite the South Downs National Park where landscape setting is an important consideration. It is essential that hard lines of housing on the Park’s boundaries are avoided.

The proposed site layout shows all the roadside hawthorn and goat willow along the western boundary would be removed to facilitate development on the road frontage of the A325 which would completely change the green outlook from the SDNP and therefore have an adverse effect on its setting. Removal of the existing landscape features would open up views of the new houses and since the proposed replacement planting on the western boundary of the site consists of a single line of trees the visual impact would not be mitigated satisfactorily.

If the proposed development were allowed and implemented it would have an adverse impact on the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the SDNP or its setting."

Comments on the slightly revised layout will be reported on the supplementary sheets

HCC Highways - Has raised an objection based on insufficient information (no Road Safety Audit) and insufficient parking provision on-site. The applicant has submitted additional information but no response has yet been received from the highway authority (final response to be reported on the supplementary sheets)

HCC School Organisation Officer - I have no adverse comments to make in respect of the application and will not be seeking a contribution to expand the primary school.

HCC Ecologist - comments that the site has been subject to a basic Phase 1 level ecological survey which has essentially identified no ecological constraints. I disagree with this assessment and consider that further work is needed to clarify the potential presence of legally-protected species (hazel dormouse, bats) as well as to establish the ecological value of and likelihood of impact to the on-site watercourse. Proposed mitigation and enhancement measures are all generic in nature and not linked to the actual development proposals.

The applicant has submitted additional information to address the concerns but no response has yet been received from the County Ecologist (final response to be reported on the supplementary sheets)

HCC Archaeologist - No objection, subject to conditions.

Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service - No objection but recommends informatives.

EHDC Housing Officer - No objection

EHDC Recycling and Refuse - No objection but recommends an informative.

EHDC Environment Health, Pollution Team - Has not raised an objection but states that there is not enough detail to be satisfied with the noise protection measures at the residential dwellings nearest the A325. Conditions therefore recommended to control this.

EHDC Environment Health, Contaminated Land Team - No objection, subject to conditions.

EHDC Landscape Officer - Initial comments:

"The proposed development is outside the Settlement Policy boundary and directly opposite the South Downs National Park where landscape setting is an important consideration. Development of the road frontage would completely change the green outlook from the SDNP and therefore have an adverse effect on its setting. I recommend that any development on this site should be set well back from the A325 with the existing landscape buffer retained and reinforced.

The Soft Landscape Proposals Plan shows more existing trees and shrubs to be retained than the Tree Protection Plan, which indicates that only 3 trees on the northern boundary are to be retained. The LVIA states that there will be a very small change from viewpoint 6 on the A325, of minor visual effect reducing to neglible. However, since it is proposed to remove all the roadside hawthorn and goat willow along the western boundary, this would open up views of the new houses that would only be partially screened in time by the proposed line of trees, therefore the visual impact would be medium. If the development is permitted, a condition should be applied to extend and widen the area of shrub planting under either end of the proposed line of trees to provide a more effective screen."

Comments on revised layout/landscaping:

"They have increased the width of the landscape buffer along the A325 but they do not show retention of any existing vegetation there and they have reduced the number of proposed trees from those shown on BEW19188-11C, therefore more landscape information is required to assess whether the buffer will be effective."

EHDC Arboricultural Officer - No objection, subject to a condition being imposed

EHDC Drainage Consultant - No objection, subject to conditions requiring details of drainage systems for both foul and surface water.

Binsted Parish Council : No objection, subject to:

• Highways approval - especially with regards for pedestrian and vehicle safety combined with visibility splays will continually meet current regulations where land within this area could encroach these splays is privately owned and may not be maintained to meet this standard. • An archaeological assessment is completed prior to any development • Limited that development has to be started within 2 years if approval is granted • Existing drainage is CCTV surveyed to ensure it is fit for purpose prior to any development We also note with concern that the School Organisation Officer has "no adverse comments to make in respect of the application and will not be seeking a contribution to expand the primary school" when all the available knowledge to us, is that that the current school capacity is at maximum therefore cannot support extra pupils without issues

Representations

49 letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns; a) increase in traffic and road safety issues; b) site creates a dependence on private car use; c) inadequate provision for sustainable transport; inadequate car parking, particularly for visitors and deliveries; d) transport statement is inadequate and not a reflection of reality; e) would put a strain on local facilities and services already under pressure, in particular schools and surgery; f) would put a strain on the drainage and sewage system already under pressure; g) site lies outside settlement policy boundary; h) loss of wildlife; i) loss of trees; j) increase in pollution; k) represents over development; l) size, scale, layout and density out of proportion and character with the ribbon development in the area; m) smaller houses required in the village; n) there are more preferred and appropriate brownfield sites elsewhere; o) sets a precedence for future development; p) contrary to local planning policies, Interim Housing Policy Statement and the NPPF; q) contravenes Farnham village design statement; r) adjoining Local Authority should be consulted; s) borders the South Downs National Park; t) lack of street lighting, in turn creating safety/crime issues; u) lack of provision of footpaths; v) increase in noise and disturbance.

Determining Issues

1. Development plan and material considerations 2. Principle of development 3. Deliverability 4. Affordable housing 5. Access and highway issues 6. Impact on neighbouring properties 7. Impact on the character of the area 8. Trees and ecology 9. Drainage 10. Energy conservation 11. Developer contributions

Planning Considerations

The key considerations in the determination of this planning application relate, firstly, to the principle of housing on this site, given its countryside position, having regard to the development plan and the lack of sufficient housing land supply within the district which has led to the publication of the Interim Housing Policy Statement. As part of the consideration of the principle of development aspects including the amount of housing proposed, the location and sustainability of the site and the credentials of the application as a deliverable prospect are also key.

1. Development plan and material considerations

As required by Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, applications must be determined in line with the adopted development plan for the area, unless material considerations apply. The development plan for EHDC comprises the 'saved' policies of the 2006 Local Plan: Second Review and the policies set out in the adopted Joint Core Strategy.

A significant material consideration is the NPPF, particularly paragraph 49 which confirms that whilst the local planning authority does not have a five year housing supply relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date. District Council does not have a five year supply of housing.

The effect of paragraph 49 of the NPPF is that saved Local Plan policies and JCS policies which restrict market housing development within the countryside beyond designated settlement policy boundaries (SPBs) are, therefore, not considered up-to-date. Whilst many objectors to the application point to restrictions on development outside settlement policy boundaries as sufficient grounds for resisting the application and oppose encroachment into greenfield sites, it is not. There are two reasons for this, firstly, the impact of paragraph 49, and secondly, the Council recognises that the District's housing requirements, as now identified in the Joint Core Strategy, is significantly larger than has previously been the case that development outside the SPBs identified in the Local Plan: Second Review, on greenfield sites, will be essential to meet the new target. The identification of the essential greenfield sites would be undertaken in the Local Plan Part 2 Allocations. However, the lack of a 5 year housing land supply brings added urgency to the need to release greenfield sites and effectively takes decisions of principle away from the plan led system and purely into the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as the NPPF sets out at paragraph 14.

The Interim Housing Policy Statement In recognising the reliance on the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development, the Council has adopted interim supplementary guidance ("Interim Housing Policy Statement”) referred to as the IHPS.

The IHPS establishes a list of criteria and considerations to be applied in determining applications for sites outside settlement policy boundaries relative to sustainability considerations in East Hampshire. A primary sustainable development principle in East Hampshire is the settlement hierarchy. This categorises settlements as market towns; large local service centres; small local service centres and other settlements with a settlement policy boundary. These categories relate to the level of facilities and services that are readily accessible. The IHPS takes forward the sustainability principles of the settlement hierarchy and is only supportive of sites that are immediately adjacent or contiguous to existing local plan settlement policy boundaries. This would ensure that planning is based on sound sustainability principles, whilst containing sprawl and maintaining compact urban envelopes.

The IHPS is not intended to replace or frustrate any part of the plan-making process, but to guide development in its absence and to speed up the delivery of housing within the district. IHPS criteria closely reflect the sustainable development aims and objectives in the NPPF and in the adopted JCS with some additional local criteria which reflect the interim status / purpose of the policy. The IHPS includes a distinction between the housing allocation numbers within key settlements in the JCS; the IHPS does not include the word ‘minimum. This is because the IHPS is a short term interim position. The Council considers it would be most sustainable to manage the amount of development in each of the target settlements over the 1-2 year period, whilst the Council does not have a five year supply of housing and a Part 2 Local Plan: allocation. To permit all the JCS housing target for the period up to 2028 in a short period is not a sustainable approach to development.

Applications will need to comply with any remaining saved policies in the Local Plan: Second Review, where applicable (Criterion 1). The intention of the IHPS is to manage development outside settlement policy boundaries so that it is not allowed in the wrong locations nor inappropriate in scale or density relative to the size, role and character of the settlement in question (Criterion 2). Criteria also (3, 4) seek to conserve townscape and landscape character, and secure adequate assessment for sites near to European protected species designations (5, 6), and support developments with safe and accessible environments (7). The policy seeks to secure a housing mix that is targeted to the local housing needs and that includes upwards of 40% affordable housing (8, 9). Concurrently, development is expected to make comprehensive and effective use of available land, with appropriate density, helping to control the amount of greenfield land likely to be development and contain the geographic size of settlements (10, 11). Criteria 12, 13 are concerned with the deliverability of sites and developments coming forward under this policy. These require that development, individually or cumulatively should not be constrained by the need for significant unplanned / funded off-site infrastructure; that there is evidence of deliverability and viability, having regard to necessary contributions towards infrastructure and affordable housing, and that the intention to develop is demonstrated by the applicant.

Criterion 13 sets out that any planning permission granted under the IHPS would need to commence within 2 years and this will be subject to a planning condition to maximise the likelihood of delivery of housing within the district in the short term. Here, it is important to reflect on the IHPS’ purpose which is clarified in the supporting text at Paragraph 5.2;

“The Council wants new homes delivered in the right places to meet the needs of the District... the emphasis will be on sites being put forward under this Interim Policy Statement approach being deliverable at the time that they are put forward. Therefore detailed applications would be preferred and be accompanied by evidence of deliverability. They should not, for example, be dependent upon delivery of significant off-site infrastructure; and should be fully in the applicant’s control. Those proposing development of a site are therefore encouraged to demonstrate a strong desire and willingness to develop it in the short term, with the necessary evidence to back up such statements.”

Local Interim Planning Statement The Council is undertaking public consultation events in the main settlements to seek views on sustainability issues affecting that settlement and which housing development sites might best meet local housing needs and place shaping aspirations. The LIPS have two purposes. They provide a local supplement to the district wide IHPS referred to above. Additionally, the LIPS are an initial options consultation under Regulation 18 of the Planning Regulations, the results of which will feed into the Part 2 Local Plan: Allocations.

As such events are an initial step in the Part 2 Local Plan Allocations work, for which there is no regulatory format to follow, they are valuable snapshots of community input. The progress on the Part 2 Local Plan will build on this, together with future community consultation events and use the up-to-date evidence that exists for the JCS e.g. transport capacity, Sustainability Appraisal, Green Infrastructure Strategy, housing needs, environmental assets etc. The LIPS consultations are a material consideration in the determination of planning applications but, as they are not statutory planning documents, carry limited weight in the determination of a planning application.

Binsted was included in the public consultation on July 2nd in the Alton Assembly Rooms and whilst the results of the exercise are due to be published shortly, early feedback from the consultation confirms that just 2 of the 19 votes cast for SHLAA sites in Binsted selected the application site as the preferred site for additional housing.

The Draft Employment and Housing Allocation Plan was submitted to the Council's Cabinet on 6 November and will go onto Council on 4th December 2014, seeking agreement to undertake a six week consultation exercise on the sites put forward. This document, in due course, will form part of the statutory Development Plan for East Hampshire District. Its primary purpose is to allocate green field land for development for housing and employment and to set out guidance for the development of these sites.

This is the first formal stage of the allocations plan and therefore carries very little weight in the consideration of planning application. However, if the Planning Committee, or indeed any subsequent appeal inspector, were to proportion more weight to the document (as time moves on), then it is worth highlighting that the draft document does include the application site as a potential site to accommodate housing. However, the draft guidance makes it clear that the site could cater for about 8 dwellings, which would need to be set out in a linear form to reflect the characteristics of the village. Housing supply considerations In spite of recent consents, there remains a shortfall in housing supply for the district. The requirement for maintaining a 5-year supply (plus buffer) is a rolling target which is imposed on councils through central government policy. The spatial strategy set out by the JCS and reflected in the IHPS is to distribute new housing throughout the key settlements within the district outside of the SDNP. The amount of housing is based on the identified settlement hierarchy as follows:

Alton – 700 new homes - 700 new homes Clanfield – 200 new homes – 175 new homes /South - 175 new homes Rowlands Castle - 150 new homes Other villages outside the South Downs National Park – 150 new homes

This strategy focuses the majority of new housing to Alton, Horndean and Clanfield. , which falls under the 'Other villages outside the South Downs National Park', is identified in the JCS as a Level 4 settlement intended to accommodate a proportionate amount of housing. The JCS observes of this scale of settlement that they:

‘have a limited range of local services and may be appropriate for some further small scale local development’

Thus far, planning permissions have been granted for a potential total of 26 dwellings under the IHPS in other villages outside the SDNP. In addition, at their meeting on 28 October this year, the Council's Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission for a further 37 dwellings at Hole Lane in Bentley, subject to the completion of a legal agreement. Therefore, once the legal agreement is in place, 63 dwellings will have been granted planning permission.

This proposal of 17 dwellings would result in a total of 80 dwellings approved and, therefore, would not satisfy the total housing requirement over the plan period of 150 (combined) for other villages that have a settlement policy boundary. In addition to this application, there are other applications submitted for Medstead, , and another in Holt Pound (also on the agenda); all of which were submitted sometime after this application and are currently awaiting determination.

Setting aside the other matters covered by this report, the site does not seem to have any overriding environmental constraints. If permission were to be granted, it would bring development forward faster than awaiting the allocation of sites through the next stage of the local plan. Some weight, therefore, arises in favour of the scheme in relation to the timing of the delivery of new housing locally. Subject to off-site works and infrastructure, which this report considers, there are no other reasons to suspect the scheme could not be implemented within a 2 year timeframe. This would contribute towards goals in the IHPS and NPPF, raising the weight which can be attributed to this positive principle benefit of the scheme.

There are notable benefits of securing further affordable housing provision to meet identified local needs. In this respect the Housing Officer is supportive, in principle and points to present levels of need. However, as the scheme would do no more than comply with the policies in the JCS on the provision of affordable housing, the respective contribution does not add significant weight to arguments relating to housing need generally. The scheme provides for 40% affordable units, which the IHPS seeks as a minimum level.

Overall, the scheme would make a small contribution to housing supply requirements and towards addressing the shortfall within the district. Addressing this shortfall and the contribution this site would make towards doing so, should be afforded some weight in this decision.

Local housing needs There is an outstanding need for affordable housing within the parish of Binsted. As identified by the Affordable Housing Officer, housing need fluctuates constantly as peoples' circumstances change or they are housed. The local housing need for rented accommodation for the Binsted parish, at the time the application was made, was for 277 dwellings. Of these, the housing need for those with a local connection currently stands at five applicants.

In addition to the housing need for rented accommodation, there are a further five households registered with the Help to Buy agent requiring intermediate housing in Binsted.

2. Principle of development

As mentioned earlier, the development must have regard to the NPPF. In the absence of a five year housing land supply, neither the recently adopted Joint Core Strategy nor the saved policies of the local plan can be relied upon in determining the principle of development for applications for housing. Instead, as with similar recent applications, it should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as the NPPF sets out at paragraph 14, which confirms that where decisions are to be taken and the relevant policies of the development plan are out-of-date permission should be granted unless:

- Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or - Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

As there are no specific policies in the NPPF to indicate that such development should necessarily be restricted, the first point is perhaps the most pertinent. The recognised benefits of the proposal include the provision of housing, both market and affordable, for which there is an identified need. These are clear economic and social benefits. For permission to be refused, the adverse impacts of the development need to significantly and demonstrably outweigh these benefits. Quite apart from the consideration of any adverse impact being caused to local character, ecology, flood risk and transport, which will be considered later in the report, there are three preliminary issues to assess in determining the principle of development. i) the adopted housing figure for Holt Pound; (as part of the figure for other villages outside of the National Park) ii) is the proposal sustainable development? e.g. locational suitability, impact on economic, environmental and social factors; and iii) consideration of alternative sites i) The adopted housing figure for Holt Pound (as part of the figure for other villages outside of the National Park) It should not be ignored that in meeting the district wide housing need up to 2028, the identified housing distribution for other villages outside the South Downs National Park is 150 new homes. This figure is set out in the spatial strategy of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) and reflected in the IHPS. This amount of housing is based on, and proportionate to, the identified settlement hierarchy set out in the JCS. Holt Pound is identified as constituting a Level 4 settlement - a rural village with a settlement policy boundary. Level 4 villages provide a limited range of local services and may be appropriate for limited local development. These villages have been defined previously through Local Plans as 'built- up' areas primarily because of the nature and extent of built development, which suggests potential for some further small scale development within them, provided it is consistent with maintaining and enhancing their character.

The adoption of the JCS in May this year followed a Local Plan Inspector's thorough testing of the housing figures for soundness. Consequently, the distribution of housing numbers for each settlement carries significant weight in the determination of a planning application for residential development under the IHPS.

Whilst the JCS establishes the settlement distributions as minimums, the IHPS establishes them as maximums for the very reason that the IHPS purpose is to provide a five year land supply within a short period of time (approximately two years).

In the case of Holt Pound, no other permissions have been granted. The total number of dwellings granted/resolved to be granted in the other villages outside the National Park is 63 (out of the 150 for the whole plan period). ii) Locational suitability The Holt Pound Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) adjoins the site to the east. Whilst the site would not adjoin the northern boundary of the SPB (which runs along the other side of Fullers Road), the site is broadly in accordance with the requirements of the IHPS.

Holt Pound is a small village settlement which soon crosses the county border and merges into Rowledge, a slightly larger village where local facilities include; a primary school, recreation ground, post office, butcher, newsagent, hairdresser, garage, a village hall, a couple of churches and two pubs. These are within 1000 metres of the application site (approx). The Forest Inn PH on the A325 is closer to the application site up the hill to the north. Whilst the site is some distance from the limited range of shops and services in Rowledge, the intervening distance is not considered to be too significant to make the site unacceptably remote in locational terms.

As the NPPF states, the purpose of planning is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and that sustainable development is about positive growth - making economic, environmental and social progress for this and future generations. In this context, the proposal would bring social benefits through the provision of housing (market and affordable) and likely contributions towards recreational open space, transportation improvements and community facilities. The proposal would play an economic role by allowing an appropriate edge of village location to support growth and the necessary provision of infrastructure. In terms of the environmental pillar of sustainable development, it is noted that the development would impact on the character of the land, but whether this would be in an adverse manner will be assessed later in the report.

Third-party representations have raised the question as to whether a development of 17 dwellings is appropriate in scale, having regard to the size of Holt Pound and the overall JCS requirement for a minimum of 150 dwellings across all the 4th tier settlements across the district (excluding the SDNP). Whether the figure of 17 new dwellings is appropriate to Holt Pound current size is certainly a valid point to consider. In fact, the IHPS states that the scale of development proposed should be appropriate to the size, character and role of the settlement and also states that, in deciding this, account will be taken of the cumulative impact of extant unimplemented permissions for the settlement concerned.

As a settlement, Holt Pound has in the region of 100 dwellings laid out in an established linear pattern fronting Fullers Road and some dwellings fronting the main A325. The provision of a further 17 dwellings (17% extra) would not be an insignificant number. However, whether the scale of the development would unduly affect the settlement's size, character and role depends upon the layout, density and form of the proposal and this will be discussed later in the report (under character of the area). iii) Consideration of alternative sites Objectors believe that alternative sites should be pursued rather than this one. The IHPS echoes the strategy to be pursued by the Joint Core Strategy which will, in any event, seek to allocate (predominantly greenfield) land to secure housing targets. However, each case must be assessed on its merits and, for the purposes of the NPPF and development plan, there is no sequential assessment requirement for housing sites when determining planning applications.

Notwithstanding other sites in the area may be preferential in one or other respects, it falls to the Council to determine this application on its individual merits, having regard to all material considerations.

In line with the NPPF, if a scheme is considered to represent sustainable development, it should be approved. There is no requirement for an applicant to demonstrate theirs is the most sustainable location for development. In this case, in the opinion of officers, while there is an absence of a 5 year housing land supply and an identified plan period need for 150 dwellings in ‘other villages with a SPB’ as set out in the adopted JCS, there is no sound basis on which to refuse the application on the grounds that there are other alternatives which may or may not be more sustainable.

3. Deliverability

While the NPPF requires LPAs to maintain a five year supply of housing sites (plus an additional buffer) it clarifies that:

“To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans.”

Nonetheless, paragraph 5.2 of the IHPS states that “The Council wants new homes delivered in the right places to meet the needs of the district, the emphasis will be on sites being put forward under this Interim Policy Statement approach being deliverable at the time that they are put forward. Therefore detailed applications would be preferred and be accompanied by evidence of deliverability.

The key issue, in this case, is not whether the development would require any off-site works in respect of drainage or highway improvements, but whether those works would be significant and accordingly might delay the implementation of the development. If so, this would be counter-productive to the goals of the IHPS of speeding up housing delivery, particularly if similar improvements may not apply to other sites coming forward. If there are no evident barriers to the development coming forward within the time period sought by the IHPS, which seeks to speed up house building by restricting the period of implementation to 2 years, there is no conflict with the IHPS’ criteria. There appear to be no significant environmental constraints on site, or significant off-site works required, that would hold up the delivery of the development.

4. Affordable housing

The affordable housing would amount to 40% of the total number of dwellings proposed and would comprise:

4 x 2 bedroomed houses 3 x 3 bedroomed houses

The Council's Housing Development Officer has stated his acceptance of this as it provides a reasonable mix of size, type and tenure to meet local needs and the needs of the district. The units would be located along the northern boundary of the site fronting Fullers Road. Two of the units would be secured as intermediate tenure and eight as affordable rent. Whilst not truly dispersed amongst the site, the Council's Housing Development Officer has acknowledged that the site is relatively small and there are few opportunities to pepper-pot the affordable units.

The provision of the affordable housing would ordinarily be secured via a legal obligation. This would secure the number of units, the size of units, tenure types and the allocation of occupation. On this latter point, the Council has a cascade approach to housing allocations, looking first at the local parish, then neighbouring East Hampshire parishes, then wider parishes and finally the district as a whole.

5. Access and highway issues

The impact on the local highway is one of the main concerns raised by third parties against the proposal. In summary, a new pedestrian and vehicular access will be formed from Fullers Road. A new pedestrian link will be provided from the site entrance to the existing bus shelter/stop on the A325.

The applicant has used the industry standard TRICS data with which to predict the likely vehicular trips generated by this development in the morning and afternoon peak. The data shows that the development, once fully occupied, would generate 12 two way movements in the morning peak (08:00 - 09:00) and 12 trips in the afternoon peak hour (17:00 - 18:00).

The County Highway Authority (CHA) has undertaken an assessment of this data and is satisfied that an increase of one car per five minutes is not significant enough to sustain an objection on the grounds of insufficient capacity of the surrounding road network. The CHA has also considered the comments raised by third parties regarding the safety of the Fullers Road junction with the A325, which some objectors have referred to as an accident black spot. The accident data over the last five years shows there have been four reported accidents, with three of them due to cars failing to slow when other cars were slowing to turn into Fullers Road. The CHA state that statistics showing fewer than one accident per year for this section of the A325 means that it would be difficult to demonstrate a detriment to highway safety in relation to the proposed development.

However, the CHA did request that further information be submitted in order for a full assessment to be carried out. They have stated that the following matters remain outstanding:

Insufficient parking provision has been proposed with 34 spaces as opposed to the required 38 spaces to meet the adopted parking standards A Road Safety Audit to cover both the access and internal estate road is required

The applicant has submitted further information in an attempt to address these outstanding matters. It is clear that the parking provision has been resolved with 38 spaces now proposed on site. However, the County Highway Authority has not yet issued their final response in terms of the submitted Road Safety Audit. Consequently, the Council has no other option other than to uphold their original objection until a response is received. As such, from the information available, it cannot be shown that the development can be accommodated in a manner that would not cause increased danger and inconvenience to highway users. The proposal as it currently stands is contrary to policy CP31 of the Joint Core Strategy.

Should this position change between the publishing of the agenda and the planning committee meeting, this will be updated on the supplementary sheets to be circulated on the day of committee.

6. Impact on neighbouring properties

There is one notable impact that needs to be assessed and that is the impact of the development on the residential amenity of Linden, the property immediately to the east of the application site.

Linden is an 'L' shaped bungalow whose side elevation is 4 - 5m away from the side boundary with the application site. The layout of the development shows that the pair of semi-detached houses occupying plots 1 & 2 would be sited in close proximity to the side boundary with Linden. The height of plots 1 & 2 would be 7.6m to their ridge. When this is compared with the much lower height of Linden (particularly evident from the street scene elevation drawing) it is clear there would be an abrupt transition in height within a relatively short distance from each other. In its facing west elevation, Linden has a bedroom window (the solitary window serving the room) together with a large lounge window. Whilst the distance to the side boundary is 4 - 5m, the removal of the woodland on the boundary to facilitate layout of the houses, the close proximity of plots 1 & 2 to this boundary and their significant height and bulk towering over the neighbouring bungalow, would all combine to result in a visually intrusive, overbearing and dominant feature for the occupants of Linden.

Another cause for concern is the orientation and proximity of plot 17 to the rear garden of Linden. Due to the sloping topography of the land and the limited screening exists on this boundary, concern is raised relating the first floor bedroom windows in the rear elevation of plot 17. In particular, from an assessment on-site, standing in the neighbour's rear garden and patio, there seems scope for these first floor windows 11 metres away from the boundary, to overlook the rear amenity area of Linden.

For these reasons, the development would adversely effect the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupants of Linden to an unacceptable degree. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy CP27 of the Joint Core Strategy.

7. Impact on the character of the area

A number of the objectors have raised concern regarding the impact this development would have on the established character of Holt Pound. In addition, the Council's Landscape Officer has raised concern over the impact it would have on the local landscape, and the South Downs National Park Authority has raised an objection to the impact on the setting of the South Downs National Park, which has a boundary on the opposite side of the A325. Relevant policy considerations comprise JCS policies CP2, CP10, CP20, CP29, CP30 and criteria 2, 3, 4, 11 of the IHPS.

Clearly, the proposal would represent a significant change in the nature and appearance of the land and the assessment to be made is whether the impact would be harmful to the local and wider area.

The IHPS (criterion 10) favours an approach whereby development maximises the potential of a site and schemes should make efficient use of the site. However, there is also a need for proposals to be balanced against criterion 2 and 11 of the IHPS, which require proposals to be appropriate to the size, character and role of the settlement and the density of housing appropriate and does not harm the established character and appearance of the area or settlement. In this context, it is necessary to identify the character and appearance of Holt Pound.

Holt Pound is a small settlement that extends from the A325 in the west to the village of Rowledge to the east. The settlement is centred along Fullers Road and the dwellings along this road, and the small number along the A325, are arranged in a strict linear form. A large number of the properties in the settlement are either bungalows or chalet style properties. The settlement contains approximately 100 dwellings.

The development would see the erection of 17 two storey houses arranged throughout the site in stark contrast to the established linear form of local plots. Consequently, the proposal bears little or no resemblance to the established character and the development does not appear to be character led - informed and sympathetic to its immediate surroundings. In addition, the two storey nature of the development and its residential density would be on perhaps the most conspicuous of all sites in Holt Pound, meaning that its dense form would not be hidden or contained within the centre of the settlement. Finally, the number of dwellings would represent a 17% increase in dwellings for the Holt Pound settlement. Whilst on its own, this may not be a reason to withhold planning permission, when considered together with the findings above, adds weight to the disproportionate nature of the proposal.

The development would not be consistent with maintaining and enhancing the character of the Holt Pound settlement, but instead would appear as a suburban development grossly at odds with the size, form and density of the settlement. The development is contrary to criteria 2 and 11 of the IHPS and policies CP2, CP10, CP29 of the JCS.

Landscape character

In terms of the impact on the landscape and the South Downs National Park, the site is located in a dip on the A325 making it a highly prominent site locally, meaning that any change to its wooded appearance would be a significant change to the street scene and landscape beyond.

The development would see the removal of the goat willow and hawthorn, opening up of the site and the resultant impact the housing development would have on the landscape setting of the South Downs National Park (SDNP) which lies immediately across the A325. The Council's Landscape Officer has raised concern that development of the road frontage on the A325 would significantly alter the green outlook from the SDNP and have an adverse impact on its setting.

The South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) has gone one step further and formally objects for the same reason. The SDNPA considers it to be essential that hard lines of housing on the Park's boundaries be avoided. The replacement planting on the western boundary, consisting of a single line of trees would not mitigate the visual impact satisfactorily.

An amended layout plan has subsequently been submitted by the applicant in an attempt to address these comments. The change now proposed is an increase in the landscape buffer on this western boundary. However, the Council's Landscape Officer comments that it does not show retention of any vegetation and it has, in fact, reduced the number of proposed trees on this boundary than shown previously. The comments from the SDNPA on the amended layout plan are yet to be received and these will be reported to the planning committee on the supplementary sheets. However, at the time of the writing of this report, the SDNPA's objection to the proposal remains.

It is clear that the development would open up the site to views in all directions and this would have an impact on the landscape setting of the SDNP which sits across the main road. JCS policies CP20, CP29 and CP30 all require that any development should conserve and enhance the natural beauty, tranquility, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park and its setting. For the reasons set out above, this development would not adhere to this requirement but would be contrary to the purposes of the SDNP.

As such, the proposal is also contrary to policies CP20, CP29 and CP30 of the JCS and criteria 3 and 4 of the IHPS.

8. Trees and ecology

The site contains an area of scrubby woodland throughout, mainly comprising hawthorn and goat willow of relatively poor quality. The applicant submitted an Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan and this has been assessed by the Council's Arboricultural Officer, who comments that the only tree of any real significance located within the site is an Oak, located at the site's eastern most aspect, adjacent to the shared boundary with Linden. Although it is proposed to install a footpath within this Oak's root protection area, the encroachment that would occur, according to the arboriculturalist, is negligible. It would, therefore, not be to the detriment to its long term health.

Given this and that the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement has demonstrated sufficiently how the salient trees within the site's curtilage would be protected should planning permission be granted, no arboricultural objections have been raised, subject to the imposition of a condition.

In terms of ecology, the presence of protected species is a material planning consideration which needs to be addressed prior to any permission being granted. The NPPF states the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible.

The application was accompanied by an Ecological Appraisal (ACD, June 2014) which provides a Phase 1 level assessment of the application site’s current ecological value and this has been assessed by the County Ecologist who comments:

The habitat within the site looks rather interesting – native scrub is a dwindling habitat and often supports a wide range of species

The on-site stream flows directly into the Bourne Stream, itself a tributary of the River Wey. Streams within this part of north Hampshire are generally acidic in nature (being formed mostly on sands and gravels) and thus not likely to contain any significant plant growth: in any case, no detail is given on the riparian vegetation present and the stream is essentially dismissed from the evaluation. There is no attempt to describe its characteristics or its ecological attributes. The presence of woody debris (such as fallen trees, branches and twigs) within the channel only serves to raise its likely ecological value, not detract from it. I consider that insufficient attention has been paid to this valuable feature and essentially no detail is provided on any potential impacts arising from this proposal. Nowhere within the application documents can I find any reference to the ecological status of this watercourse.

• Given the confirmed presence of Hazel Dormice within the landscape (a single record within Alice Holt forest, but the species is extremely likely to be widespread throughout this extensive woodland), the presence of connecting habitat (a review of an aerial image clearly shows this to be the case) and the well-structured ‘dense and continuous’ scrub habitat within the site, I do not understand why the potential presence of this European protected species has been dismissed. From a look at the photos (e.g. Photo 1, page 11) the site would appear to provide optimal dormouse habitat. The ecology report states that dormice are found within ‘dense scrub connected to woodland’, exactly the type of habitat within the application site. Therefore, the likelihood of this species occurring needs to be re-examined.

• The assessment of bat roosting potential is confusing. Initially (paragraph 4.2.3) the report states that some trees within the site may have hidden cracks and cavities, then (4.2.5) states that potential for roosting bats is negligible. There is no detail on any of the trees within the site, even those which it is considered are not suitable. Given the apparent removal of mature trees in advance of this application, it would be useful to have an ecological opinion on whether the felled trees were of interest to bats and whether the felling was supervised by a licensed bat worker where required.

• Whilst I am content to agree that the site itself is not likely to harbour large numbers of foraging bats, a review of aerial photography demonstrates that this site provides a useful link between the more extensive forested habitats to the east and west. No examination of the potential impacts to the bats’ landscape has been provided – this is pertinent as the data search revealed a significant roost of pipistrelle bats within 100m of the site: might the scrub here not act as a useful corridor or stepping-stone for bats locally? There is an odd statement that any bat foraging or commuting interest will be of value within the context of the site only – given the presence of a presumed maternity colony nearby, is the suggestion that bats would not utilise this site at all? Further clarification is required.

In response to these comments from the County Ecologist, the applicant submitted a rebuttal/additional information. At the time of writing this report for committee, the comments from the County Ecologist had not been received. Consequently, in the absence of a response to the contrary it is difficult for the Council to assess whether the development would impact on protected species and such information cannot be left to be covered by condition, as the potential harm or any necessary mitigation has not been established. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to policy CP21 of the Joint Core Strategy .

Should this position change between the publishing of the agenda and the planning committee meeting, this will be updated on the supplementary sheets to be circulated on the day of committee.

9. Drainage

Drainage and flood risk All areas not designated as Flood Zones 2 or 3 are designated as Flood Zone 1. The application site is within Flood Zone 1 (Low Probability). This zone comprises land assessed as having a less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of river or sea flooding in any year (<0.1per cent). However, for development proposals on sites of one hectare (or above), the vulnerability to flooding from other sources as well as from river and sea flooding, and the potential to increase flood risk elsewhere through the addition of hard surfaces and the effect of the new development on surface water run-off, should be incorporated in a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). As this site is less than 1ha, the applicant has instead submitted a drainage statement and drainage and utilities investigation report.

Due to the geology of the site, full infiltration is not viable so the drainage strategy makes provision for the surface water to be positively drained. In this context, the surface water will be connected to the existing surface water sewer ditch located along the southern boundary of the site. The surface water disposal will be restricted greenfield run-off rates. Water from an extreme storm event up to a 1 in 100 year storm with 30% allowance for climate change will be stored/attenuated on site. Water butts will be provided for each dwelling to reduce surface water run-off and permeable systems will be used for the driveways and parking areas which will partially drain into the surface water system.

The Council's drainage consultant has assessed the submitted information and raises no objection. However, the schematic drainage layout provided will require more detailed design, together with a detailed maintenance and management plan for the surface water drainage system, including the ditch. This can be controlled by conditions.

Foul water The foul drainage strategy proposes to flow by gravity to the existing public foul water manhole located within the site boundary subject to the agreement of Thames Water. Thames Water has not raised an objection to the development.

Therefore, with appropriate planning conditions imposed and subsequent details assessed for their suitability, the development would not exacerbate existing drainage problems or increase flood risk locally. As such, the proposal in this regard accords with JCS policy CP25.

10. Energy conservation

Policy CP24 of the JCS requires new development to promote the conservation of energy by seeking the highest practicable degree of energy efficiency. In this instance, on completion, the dwelling should meet at least level 4 Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) threshold and must provide at least 10% of energy demand from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy sources. A sustainability and energy report has been submitted to support this application. It concludes that all dwellings will achieve level 4 CSH through a reduction in energy demand and that at least 10% of the energy will be garnered through photovoltaic panels on each dwelling.

Details would ordinarily be sought through a condition if this application was being supported.

11. Developer contributions

The three tests as set out in Regulation 122(2) require S.106 agreements to be:

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

As the application proposes the provision of 17 additional residential units, in order for the development to be acceptable in planning terms, a S.106 agreement is required to secure the following contributions:

• £23,340 - Community facilities in accordance with Policy CP32 of the JCS • £23,216 - Recreational open space provision in accordance with policy CP18 of the JCS • £70,513 - Transportation improvements in accordance with policies CP31 of the JCS and T2 of the Local Plan • Securing the affordable housing element in accordance with policy CP13 of the JCS • 5% admin and monitoring fee in accordance with the Council's 'Guide to Developer Contributions' 2014

The County Council has confirmed that they will not be seeking a contribution towards the expansion of the primary school in Rowledge.

The above contributions would need to be secured by a legal obligation under S106 of the 1990 Planning Act. No such obligation has been progressed and so an objection is raised due to the conflict with policies CP13, CP18, CP31 and CP32 of the JCS and policy T2 of the Local Plan and the Council's 'Guide to Developer Contributions' 2014.

Response to Parish/Town Council Comments

The comments raised by Binsted Parish Council are noted and, where applicable, have been carefully considered in this report.

Conclusion

The NPPF advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Any adverse impacts of the proposal would need to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits for permission to be refused.

In terms of benefits, it is acknowledged that the proposal will provide more dwellings in the district to boost housing supply and contribute towards addressing the deficit in the Council's five year housing land supply. Furthermore, 40 per cent of these units will be affordable, and these will be provided in a mix of unit sizes to help meet the need for family housing in the parish of Binsted.

The other contributions to be sought under a S106 legal agreement arising from the needs directly generated by this development would be towards, highway improvements, local community facilities and improving recreational open space. These are all positive benefits that will result from the development. However, the S106 legal agreement has not been completed.

In terms of the harmful impacts of the development, regard is had to the density, form and scale of the development, none of which would be in keeping with the established character of the local area. The application fails to demonstrate that the development would take account of the setting of the landscape character and, in particular, the impact on the South Downs National Park. In addition, the development would have an adverse impact on the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring property of 'Linden'. Other harm is caused to the ecological interests of the land and the impact on highway safety, neither of which have been resolved.

The benefits of housing provision (including affordable dwellings) in meeting the district wide shortfall are clearly outweighed by the adverse impacts identified in this report.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSAL for the following reasons:

1 The proposed development, by virtue of its density, form and scale, would represent a suburban form of development that would be completely at odds with the established character and appearance of the settlement. The layout and design of the development would not contribute to local distinctiveness and would neither be appropriate nor sympathetic to its surroundings. Instead the development would unduly harm the established local character. As such, the development is contrary to policies CP2, CP10, CP29 of the Joint Core Strategy and the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement and NPPF.

2 The proposed development, by virtue of the position of the buildings and insufficient landscape planting/retention, would open up the site and introduce a dominant line of built form in close proximity to the South Downs National Park which lies across the main road (A325). This would significantly alter the green outlook from the Park and have an adverse impact on its setting. As such, the development is contrary to policies CP20, CP29 and CP30 of the Joint Core Strategy, the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement and the NPPF (Chapter 11).

3 The proposed development, by virtue of the scale and close proximity plot 1 to the existing bungalow of 'Linden' to the west, would result in a visually intrusive and dominant outlook that would have an unacceptable overbearing impact on this property. Furthermore, the close proximity of plot 17 to the side boundary with 'Linden' and the insufficient landscape planting/retention on the boundary, would result in harmful overlooking from first floor bedroom windows into the rear garden and patio area of this neighbouring property. As such, the development is contrary to policy CP27 of the Joint Core Strategy.

4 The proposal fails to show that significant harm would not be caused to protected species known to be present in the locality, contrary to policy CP21 of the East Hampshire District Joint Core Strategy 2014.

5 From the information available it cannot be shown that the development can be accommodated in a manner that would not cause increased danger and inconvenience to highway users. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Policy CP31 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy.

6 No provision has been made towards integrated transportation measures, community facilities or recreational open space with the proposal, contrary to policies CP18, CP31 and CP32 of the Joint Core Strategy and the Council's 'Guide to Developers' Contributions and Other Planning Requirements', and policy T2 of the Local Plan Second Review.

7 Without a Section 106 legal agreement or unilateral undertaking from the applicant agreeing to the following additional provisions (set out in full in the officers report) an objection is raised in accordance with policy CP13, CP18 and CP32 of the Joint Core Strategy and the Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014:

• Securing at least 40% affordable housing provision on site • Five per cent contribution towards administration and monitoring fee • Site management of landscaping and open spaces • Drainage management and maintenance

Informative Notes to Applicant:

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

• offering a pre-application advice service,

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

• by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter.

In this instance, the applicant was provided with pre-application advice and has been updated of issues after the initial site visit and during the course of the application, including a meeting held between the parties on 03/11/14.

CASE OFFICER: Nick Upton 01730 234232 ———————————————————————————————————————

SECTION 1 Item 2 Land West of Linden, Fullers Road, Rowledge, Farnham

Proposed site plan