Eastleigh House Upper Market Street Eastleigh SO50 9YN

16 January 2019

NOTICE OF MEETING

BURSLEDON, HAMBLE-LE-RICE AND HOUND LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE will meet on Thursday, 24 January 2019 beginning at 6:00 pm in the Hamble Primary School, Hamble Lane, Hamble-le-Rice, SO31 4ND

TO: Councillor Tonia Craig (Chair) Councillor Steve Holes (Vice-Chair) Councillor David Airey Councillor Malcolm Cross Councillor Adam Manning Councillor Jane Rich

Staff Contacts: Matt Dobrowolski, Democratic Services Officer Tel: 023 8068 8080; Please email: [email protected] to register to speak before the meeting .

Matt Blythe, Local Area Manager Tel:023 8068 8311; Email: [email protected]

GAETANA WISEMAN Performance and Governance Manager ______

Copies of this and all other agendas can be accessed via the Council's website - https://meetings.eastleigh.gov.uk. as well as in other formats, including Braille, audio, large print and other languages, upon request.

Members of the public are invited to speak on general items at the start of the meeting, and on individual agenda items at the time the item is discussed. To register please contact the Democratic Services Officer above. Please be aware that Eastleigh Borough Council permits filming, sound recording and photography at meetings open to the public, and Councillors will be using tablet devices to access committee papers. AGENDA

1. Apologies

2. Minutes of Previous Meeting (Pages 1 - 4) To consider the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 October 2018.

3. Public Participation

4. Declarations of Interest Members are invited to declare interests in relation to items of business on the agenda. Any interests declared will be recorded in the Minutes.

5. Report of the Local Area Manager (Pages 5 - 10)

6. Community Investment Programme - Report of the Local Area Manager (Pages 11 - 20)

7. Presentation on Planning Guidelines

8. Planning Application - Land off Providence Hill, Bursledon, Southampton, SO31 8AU (Pages 21 - 62) Outline Application: Residential development of up to 91 dwellings, associated open space, landscaping, amenity areas and infrastructure means of access from Providence Hill. (Access, appearance, layout & scale to be considered)(Amended Description - Matters considered and housing numbers updated) (Ref. O/17/81166).

9. Planning Application - 1-3 Oakdene, Windmill Lane, Bursledon, SO31 8BG (Pages 63 - 82) Change of use of paddock land to the rear of 1-3 Oakdene to site 6 additional mobile homes, construction of associated amenity buildings and erection of 3m high barrier fence along part of the north-eastern and the south-eastern boundaries. (Ref.F/18/83586).

10. Hound Road Experimental Order (Pages 83 - 86)

11. Planning Appeals The Legal Services Manager to report:-

(a) that the following appeals have been allowed:-

Land at Satchell Lane, Hamble-le-Rice, SO31 4HP. Appeal against the council’s decision to refuse a planning application for up to 70 dwellings together with associated access , public open space , landscaping and amenity areas (Ref.O/17/80319). This was an LAC decision.

(b) that the following appeals have been dismissed:-

The Paddock, Shop Lane, Bursledon, SO19 0QS. Appeal against the decision of the Council to refuse an application for the conversion of steel framed building to form one single residential building. (Ref.PN/17/82067)

This was a delegated decision.

Woodlands, Hound Road, Netley Abbey, SO31 5FZ. Appeal against the Council’s refusal to grant a planning permit for a carport. (Ref.H/18/82722)

This was a delegated decision.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING Thursday, 28 March 2019 at 6:00 pm at Hamble Primary School, Hamble Lane, Hamble-le-Rice, SO31 4ND

Your Council’s electronic news service - e-news -

Register your email address free with the Council and keep up to date with what’s happening in the Borough. Simply select your topics and we will send you email updates with news as it happens including new Council Jobs, What’s On, Recycling, Transport plus lots more. www.eastleigh.gov.uk/enews This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 2 1

BURSLEDON, HAMBLE-LE-RICE AND HOUND LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Thursday, 25 October 2018 (6:00 pm – 7:40 pm)

PRESENT:

Councillor Craig (Chair); Councillors Holes, Airey, Cross, Manning and Rich

______

RESOLVED ITEMS (SUBJECT TO QUESTIONS ONLY)

31. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

RESOLVED -

That the minutes of the meeting held on the 20 September 2018 be confirmed and signed by the Chair as the correct record.

32. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

There was no public participation on this occasion.

33. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest in relation to items of business on the agenda.

34. PRESENTATION ON PLANNING GUIDELINES

Development Management staff gave a short presentation on guidelines that had to be taken into account when determining planning applications; in particular the issues that could, and could not, be taken into account. This was set against the broader policy framework.

35. PLANNING APPLICATION - HAMBLEWELL, CHURCH LANE, BURSLEDON, SO31 8AB

The Committee considered the report of the Housing Development Lead Specialist for (Agenda item 6) concerning an application for the subdivision of a plot and construction of a two bedroom single storey detached dwelling with access from Church Lane, and construction of detached single garage for existing dwelling.( Ref. F/18/83292).

The Committee was advised that there was a typographical error in paragraph 9 of the report and this should read “A total of 13 representations have been received, 4 against, 5 in support and 4 highlighting some concerns.”

1 2

RESOLVED -

That permission be REFUSED on grounds of :

 being contrary to saved Policies 1.CO & 179.LB of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2010-2011);  Policies S9 & BU7 of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029, (July 2014); and  Policies S7 & BU7 of the Emerging Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2016-2036, (June 2018).

With the final wording to be agreed with the Chair and Vice Chair.

(NOTES: a) One local resident spoke in support of application however voiced concerns about the prominence and height of the proposed garage and; b) the applicants spoke in support of the application.)

36. HAMBLE SQUARE CAR PARKING CHARGES 2019 - REPORT OF THE LOCAL AREA MANAGER

The Committee considered the report of the Local Area Manager (Agenda Item 7) concerning the annual review of car parking charges in Hamble Square car park.

RESOLVED –

That the Hamble Square parking charges for 2019, as set out within the report, be approved.

Option Old tariff New tariff

Up to one hour .80 .80

Up to 2 Hours 1.60 1.60

Up to 3 Hours 2.20 2.20

Up to 4 Hours 2.90 2.90

37. STREET TRADING CONSENT APPLICATION - CAFE GLORIANA ; REPORT OF THE SERVICE DELIVERY - ECONOMY LEAD SPECIALIST

The Committee considered the street trading consent renewal application for Café Gloriana at The Quay, High Street, Hamble.

RESOLVED –

2 3

That the application for Café Gloriana to trade on Thursdays and Fridays from 10am to 5pm be approved.

38. PUBLIC FOOTPATH DIVERSION NO 1 AT HAMBLE LANE, HOUND - REPORT OF THE SENIOR ENGINEERING SPECIALIST

The Committee heard the report of the Senior Engineering Specialist (Agenda Item 9) which considered the public footpath diversion of Hound Footpath No 01 at Hamble Lane, Hound.

RESOLVED –

That that authorisation be given for the consultation on and processing of an Order under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the diversion of Public Footpath Hound No 01.

39. PLANNING APPEALS

The Legal Services Manager reported:-

(a) that the following appeal had been lodged:-

Woodlands, Hound Road, Netley Abbey, Southampton, SO31 5FZ. Appeal against the Council's refusal of planning permission for the retention of a carport (retrospective application).

This was a delegated decision

RESOLVED -

That the report be noted.

M6340

3 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5

BURSLEDON, HAMBLE-LE-RICE AND HOUND LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Thursday, 24 January 2019

BURSLEDON, HAMBLE-LE-RICE AND HOUND LOCAL AREA ACTION PLAN

Report of the Local Area Manager

Recommendation

It is recommended that

The Bursledon, Hamble-le-Rice and Hound Local Area Action Plan 2019/20 shown in Appendix 1 be approved for adoption and publication.

Summary

This report presents the priorities for the coming year for the Local Area Committee.

Statutory Powers

Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 i.e. the Local Authority's general power of competence, including power to act for the benefit of its area or persons resident or present in its area.

Strategic Implications

1. This report seeks to address all of the key objectives in the Corporate Plan.

 Local First – supporting local projects that deliver improved local facilities and services.  Healthy Communities – Enabling health lifestyles  Prosperous Place – Reinvigorating Local Centres  Excellent Environment for all. Introduction

2. The Council has agreed a set of Borough-wide objectives to improve quality of life for all. These are set out in the Corporate Plan 2015-25. The Council also seeks to enable decisions to be made at the most appropriate local level, mostly notably through the five Local Area Committees but also through our town and parish councils and other more local partnerships.

5 3. The Local Area Committee regularly approves a Community Investment Programme (CIP), which lists all the local projects and initiatives that the Local Area Committee and Parishes would like to deliver in the short, medium and long term. The list is used to negotiate section 106 contributions from developers which often form the majority of the funds required. These funds often need to be pooled from several developments over several years in order to achieve sufficient project budget.

4. All five Local Area Committees are now seeking to set out a shorter-term list of priorities for the coming year and the Bursledon, Hamble-le-Rice and Hound Local Area Action Plan 2019/20 is given in Appendix 1. The Plan will be used to determine budgets and staff resources as part of the Council’s annual business planning cycle.

5. Local Area and Cabinet Councillors have been consulted on the draft Plan and it is now recommended that the Bursledon, Hamble-le-Rice and Hound Local Area Action Plan 2019/20 is approved for adoption and publication, subject to minor formatting changes.

Financial Implications

6. There are no direct financial implications arising from this report.

Risk Assessment

7. There are no direct risks arising from this report.

Equality and Diversity Implications

8. The Equality Act is not relevant to the decision in this report as the decision does not relate to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity, or fostering good relations between different people. An Equality Impact Assessment has not been carried out.

Conclusion

9. The report presents the draft Bursledon, Hamble-le-Rice and Hound Local Area Action Plan shown in Appendix 1 for approval.

MATTHEW BLYTHE LOCAL AREA MANAGER

Date: January 2019 Contact Officer: Matthew Blythe Tel No: 023 8068 8311 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 1

Eastleigh Borough Council 6 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - SECTION 100D

The following is a list of documents which disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report. This list does not include any published works or documents which would disclose exempt or confidential information.

 Eastleigh Borough Council Corporate Plan 2015-2025

Eastleigh Borough Council 7 This page is intentionally left blank Hiltingbury Bursledon, Hamble-le-Rice Chandler’s Cllr Tonia Craig - Local Area Chair Ford & Hound (BHH) Bishopstoke Fair Eastleigh Horton Oak Heath [email protected] Local Area Action Plan West End

Hedge End

Botley Responsibilities of the Key Projects & Priorities Local Area Committee Bursledon ▶▶Major planning applications ▶▶Bursledon Station car-park Netley ▶▶Decide planning applications - Maximise community benefit improvements – feasibility study Hamble- ▶Champion the local area le-Rice ▶ from current sites at Bursledon ▶▶Manage local budgets Car-Boot site, Kingfisher ▶▶Public Art plan for the peninsula ▶▶Decide local priorities Grange, Monarchs Keep. ▶Air quality review and Travel ▶▶Work with the local community ▶ ▶▶Mercury Hub – ensure the Plan for the Peninsula ▶▶Determine local levels of council services such Key Partnerships Service Level Agreement with as Streetscene and Traffic Management Hamble Parish is effective. ▶▶Investigate the introduction of a ▶Bursledon Parish Council youth partnership ▶ Responsibilities of the ▶▶Hamble Parish Council Local Area Manager ▶▶Hound Parish Council Key Services (Internal) ▶▶Act as a link between the Council and local ▶▶Bursledon District Community people Association ▶▶Country Parks and Land ▶▶Locality Area Services – car ▶▶Pilands Wood Community ▶▶Support local Councillors Management – Hamble parks at Hamble Square, Netley Association ▶▶Manage the local revenue budget and the Common and the Lowford Centre capital programme/major projects ▶▶Hamble School and Sports Complex ▶▶Work with the Council to improve local ▶▶Corporate Communications ▶▶Support Services – Community ▶▶Primary schools services and to ensure value for money Grants/Finance ▶▶Direct Services – leaf clearance, ▶▶Health centres ▶▶Identify local needs and priorities benches, bins, fencing. ▶▶Specialist services – traffic ▶▶Youth Options ▶▶Work closely with Town and Parish Councils, regulation orders and traffic ▶▶Hampshire County Council/ schools and community groups studies Hamble River Authority 9 Matt Blythe - Local Area Manager ▶▶Hampshire Police [email protected] 023 8068 8311 ▶▶Local Businesses including GE Aviation, BP and Coopervision This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6

BURSLEDON, HAMBLE-LE-RICE AND HOUND LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Thursday, 24 January 2019

COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PROGRAMME AND REVENUE PROJECTS

Report of the Local Area Manager

Recommendation(s)

It is recommended that

(1) The committee approves the use of £100,000 of Developers Contributions to complete the works at Coronation Parade, Hamble.

(2) The committee approves the use of £12,000 of Developers Contributions to complete the works at the Cricket Camp, Manor Farm.

(3) The committee approves the use of £12,000 of Developers Contributions to improve Woodlands Way play area.

(4) The committee approves the use of £16,500 of Developers Contributions to improve the Long Lane Recreation Ground play area.

(5) The committee approves the use of £3,000 of Developers Contributions to provide designated healthy walking routes at Long Lane Recreation Ground.

(6) The committee approves the use of £3,500 of Developers Contributions to provide designated healthy walking routes at Pilands Wood open space.

(7) The committee approves the use of up to £5,500 of Developers Contributions to provide a new heating system for Netley Sea Scouts.

(8) The committee approves the reallocation of Developers Contributions to the Lionheart Ecology Park project.

(9) The committee confirms the use of £5,000 of revenue funds to support the reopening of the View Café, Netley.

(10) The committee approves user charges for the Mercury Library and Community Hub.

(11) The committee confirms the grant of £100 to St Paul’s Church, Bursledon

11 Summary This report details a number of projects and schemes to improve the prosperity, environment and wellbeing of residents in the Bursledon, Hamble-le-Rice and Hound area. The Local Area Committee’s support is sought to enable their implementation.

Statutory Powers Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 i.e. the Local Authority's general power of competence, including power to act for the benefit of its area or persons resident or present in its area. Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – planning obligations

Strategic Implications 1. The works outlined below contribute to the following strategic priorities:  Local First – supporting local projects that deliver improved local facilities and services.  Healthy Communities – Enabling health lifestyles  Prosperous Place – Reinvigorating Local Centres  Excellent Environment for all.

Coronation Parade Improvements 2. It has been a longstanding aspiration of the Committee to carry out environmental improvement works to Coronation Parade in Hamble. This parade of shops/flats lies at the gateway to Hamble and is highly visible to visitors and residents. 3. Works started in spring 2018. Four new parking bays were completed on Coach Road in May and the Coronation Parade improvements are almost complete as at January 2019. The decorative railings incorporating the theme of ‘seagulls in flight’ are due to be fitted in February. 4. The budget has increased significantly since the original estimates. The latest update is that the overall cost of the project is approximately £300,000. This is for the following reasons:  Due to space restrictions the disabled ramp access required a larger structure than originally envisaged. This added approximately £28,000 (including the increased amount of railings required).  The lighting required after the original estimates has added approximately £24,000.  The original retaining wall design required redesign to provide a more robust structure. This resulted in an increase of approximately £30,000.

Eastleigh Borough Council 12  Despite carrying out trial bore holes prior to works, they did not identify the extent of services running through the area. The works required as a result of this have added approximately £20,000. 5. Funding for the project is through a combination of Developer Contributions, a £40,000 grant from Hamble le-Rice Parish Council and £8,000 from Tesco’s ‘Bags of Help’ programme. 6. The BHH LAC does not currently have available capital budgets to fund this additional cost. However there is a case to allocate ‘future’ Developer Contributions at our own risk (see paragraph 8). 7. In order to fund the remaining work it is recommended that the following Developer’s Contribution be allocated for this purpose. Coronation Parade is a project specified within this agreement and has already been used for much of the funding so far. The total Community Infrastructure contribution agreed is £265,312 (index linked) of which 50% has been paid by the developer (and used for Coronation Parade). The next 50% is due on occupation of the 60th property. As of December 2018, 25 houses were occupied.

Developer Contribution

F/17/79863 Berry Farm, Hamble Lane, Bursledon

8. Members must be clear that these properties are not yet occupied and the initial budget would be funded by prudential borrowing until the developer contributions are available (although this is likely to be in the short term only).

Cricket Activity Camp 9. As part of the S.106 agreement with Bellway Homes regarding the Dodwell/Pylands Lane development, specific provision was made for the improvement of existing facilities at the Cricket Activity Centre. 10.The scouts have already been allocated £122,000 to carry out required works. 11.In order to complete the improvement works on site they have requested that a further £12,000 of the allocated contributions be released to carry out the following works:

Purpose Quote Received From Amount

Repairs to Archery Range Quicks Archery 732.94

Repairs to Climbing Tower DMM International Ltd 2,284.42

Repairs to Rifle Range Chichester Armoury 188.10

Electrical Works Moore Electrical Services 960.00

Fire Alarms Classic Fire & Security Ltd 762.00

Tree Works Neil Boulter Tree & Hedge Care 350.00

Eastleigh Borough Council 13 Toilet Refurbishment Tony's Roofing & Building Solutions 2,000.00

Tree Works Neil Boulter Tree & Hedge Care 700.00

New Rifles Chichester Armoury 840.00

Carpet Uplift Town and Country Carpets 704.34

Upgrade WC to Accessible WC Tony's Roofing & Building Solutions 1,539.00

Additional Archery Butts Quicks Archery 189.00

Grounds Improvements* 2x heavy duty 8-seat picnic bench/table 750.00

Total 11,999.80

12.It is recommended that the following Developer’s Contribution be allocated to fund this work.

Developer Contribution Amount of Amount DC remaining Required

DC O/12/71522, Bellway Homes re Dodwell/Pylands Ln, Bursledon. Scout camp relocation. 15,099.51 £12,000

Total £12,000

Lionheart Way Ecology Park 13.At the Local Area Committee on 22 March 2018, it was agreed that Bursledon Parish Council be allocated the developer contributions outlined below towards drainage works at Lionheart Way Ecology Park which is an important resource to the local community.

Developer Contribution Amount of Amount DC remaining Required

OS C/14/74932 Foreman Homes re Windmill Lane, Bursledon 14,955.28 14,955.28

OS O/14/74322 Foreman Homes Land at Providence Hill, Bursledon 60,261.39 60,261.39

OS F/14/74789 Southcott Homes, Pylands House, Pylands Lane, Bursledon 463.01 463.01

OSF/08/63101Mr Hadley, Land adj to Milkwood Receipt Date:03/10/2008 634.10 634.10

OS F/14/74789 Southcott Homes, Pylands House, Pylands Lane, Bursledon 1,345.47 1,345.47

Total 77,659.45

14.Due to the wording of the legal agreement with the developer, the contribution associated with O/14/74322 is relatively flexible, with the ability to be used

Eastleigh Borough Council 14 throughout the ‘Bursledon, Hamble and Hound Local Area’. For this reason it is recommended that the majority of it be replaced with another contribution that is specific to Bursledon. It is recommended that the alternative contribution is O/13/73701. The balance of O/14/74322 will be returned to the ‘unallocated’ budget for future use. This will have no impact on the amount of money allocated to the Parish and is within the pooling restrictions. The allocation would now be as follows (please note the slight increase overall is due to interest added):

Developer Contribution Amount of Amount DC remaining Required

OS C/14/74932 Foreman Homes re Windmill Lane, Bursledon 15,301.50 15,301.50

OS O/14/74322 Foreman Homes Land at Providence Hill, Bursledon 61,148.80 6,995.39

OS O/13/73701 Bovis Homes North of Bridge Rd & West of Blundell Lane, Bursledon 54,153.41 54,153.41

OSF/08/63101Mr Hadley, Land adj to Milkwood Receipt Date:03/10/2008 649.95 649.95

OS F/14/74789 Southcott Homes, Pylands House, Pylands Lane, Bursledon 1,853.70 1,853.70

Total 78,953.95

Bursledon Parish Council Projects 15. Bursledon Parish Council has approached the Local Area Committee for funding for a number of capital projects utilising developer contributions. These are outlined in the tables below. The additional population from the developments generating the contributions will require new facilities and services. These projects help meet this demand. In addition Woodlands Way projects are specifically identified within the specified contribution and Barratt homes have given permission to use the proposed contribution for the Long Lane project.

Location Works Council Objective Complete Cost

Woodlands To remove and install new To improve the health of 31/03/19 £12,000 Way Play area roundabout and springer Bursledon Residents including new safety base through play

Developer Contribution Amount of Amount DC remaining Required

OS F/17/79863 BDW Trading, Berry Farm, Hamble Lane, Bursledon £76,284.12 £12,000

Total £12,000

Eastleigh Borough Council 15 Location Works Council Objective Complete Cost

Long Lane Remove and install sea To improve the health of 31/03/19 £16,500 Recreation saw, Double aeroplane Bursledon Residents Ground Play Spring Rider, Basket Swing. through play area Including removal and installation of new safety base.

Developer Contribution Amount of Amount DC remaining Required

OS F/17/79863 BDW Trading, Berry Farm, Hamble Lane, Bursledon £64,284.12 £16,500

Total £16,500

Location Works Council Objective Complete Cost

Long Lane Healthy Walks/Trim Trail To improve the health of 31/03/19 3,000 Recreation direction posts and way Bursledon Residents Ground marker posts through encouraging walking

Developer Contribution Amount of Amount DC remaining Required

OS F/17/79863 BDW Trading, Berry Farm, Hamble Lane, Bursledon £47,784.12 £3,000

Total £3,000

Location Works Council Objective Complete Cost

Pilands Wood Healthy Walks/Trim Trail To improve the health of 31/03/19 £3,500 Open Space direction posts and way Bursledon Residents marker posts through encouraging walking

Developer Contribution Amount of Amount DC remaining Required

OS C/14/74932 Foreman Homes re Windmill Lane, Bursledon £2,802.72 £2,802.72

OS O/13/73701 Land to North of Bridge Road and West of Blundell Road, Bursledon £12,560.25 £697.27

Total £3,500

Netley Sea Scouts 16.The Committee has been approached by Netley Sea Scouts for funding to replace their heating system which recently failed. They require up to £5,500

Eastleigh Borough Council 16 to deliver this work. The following developer contribution has been identified to fund this request.

Developer Contribution Amount of Amount DC remaining Required

DC O/14/74322 Foreman Homes Land at Providence Hill, Bursledon £107,439.51 £5,500

Total £5,500

17.Due to the increased population from the development this will increase pressure on local infrastructure and services. Netley Sea Scouts serves the whole BHH area and is likely to take on members from the new development.

The View Café (Netley Nibbles) 18.The View Café in Netley Abbey has been closed, since the Groundworks charity pulled out in mid-2018. The building is owned by Eastleigh Borough Council. Without a tenant the Council would be losing approximately £5,000 of rental income per year. 19.Before leaving, Groundworks introduced the Growfest Charity as a potential new tenant. The Growfest Charity is run by a Netley Abbey couple, Steve and Maria Harris. They propose to run the café as ‘Netley Nibbles’. 20.Netley Nibbles will be a community service that will be managed by the Growfest Charity. The Hub will be supported by the Grow Project Day Service, whose members have a disability, as part of work experience programmes. 21.Netley Nibbles will provide the following services:  Affordable based Café environment for all in the community  Signposting services  Themed groups  Access to gain real opportunities for work  Potential cycle repair workshop 22.As a new start-up the charity requested support in setting the café up. Given that the café had no other prospective tenants and the only other café in Netley village recently closed, it was agreed that the Local Area Committee would fund one year’s rent. However this would be paid on a quarterly basis, subject to the following requirements/conditions:  The grant will be for one year only. After this time the project would need to be self-sustaining.  There is no guarantee that the café will be available in the longer term and there will be a reasonably short notice period.  Work with Youth Options for one night per week supporting local youth work in Hound.

Eastleigh Borough Council 17  Grant would effectively be paid on a quarterly basis. Additional grant payments would be reliant on a satisfactory progress report.  The quarterly report would include: o Income v. expenditure o Opening hours, approx. usage etc o Community usage o Events run/supported o New projects/promotions etc o Possible funding streams o Plans for the next quarter

The Mercury Library and Community Hub 23.The Mercury Hub and Community Library is now complete and due to be opening in January. Part of the business model is for it to be available for hire to community groups and local businesses. For that reason charges must be agreed by the committee. It is recommended that the charges outlined below should be adopted.

Area Charge

Library area £15 per hour

Large meeting room £10 per hour

It is proposed that the charges be reviewed after six months when there is a better understanding of the market/demand.

Community Grant 24.The committee received a request for a grant of £100 from St. Pauls Church, Bursledon. This was to go towards running a ‘Light Party’ at St. Paul’s Church on the evening of 31 October 2018. The purpose of the party was to offer local families a fun alternative to ‘trick or treating’ and a time to positively engage together as a family. The Light Party includes a disco, party games, crafts, activities and food in the form of a meal. The Light Party involves the help of a large number of volunteers and is run for free with no entry fee charged. The church is reliant on donations to cover the costs incurred in running this event.

Eastleigh Borough Council 18 Financial Implications 25.Failure to approve the Coronation Parade developer contribution will leave the project short and the Local Area Committee will have to fund the shortfall from other budgets/reserves. 26.Failure to agree the charges for the Mercury Library and Community Hub will mean it will not be able to be hired out and the Council will lose revenue. 27.Otherwise there are no financial implications apart from the commitments set out for each project.

Risk Assessment 28. There is a risk that if 60 houses on the Berry Farm development are not occupied, the future developer contributions will not materialise. If that happens the BHH LAC will have to underwrite the grant from elsewhere in its budgets, although this could be done over a number of years. However this seems highly unlikely given there are already 25 houses occupied. 29.Otherwise there are no identifiable risks attached to these proposals which should be brought to the attention of the Local Area Committee and Council.

Equality and Diversity Implications 29. The Equality Act is relevant to the decisions in this report as the decision relates to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity, or fostering good relations between different people in the following ways:  The provision of ramped access to shops in Coronation Parade.  Accessible WC at the Cricket Camp.  Various services for people with disabilities at Netley Nibbles. The decision/change of service will result in an improvement for people with the ‘protected characteristic of disability’. A full Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) has not been carried out, because while there are some equality impacts, it is not proportionate to carry out a full EIA.

Conclusion 30.These recommendations are now submitted for Councillors’ final approval from the Local Area Committee’s reserves/capital budgets. As further schemes are worked up, they will be brought before the Area Committee over the course of the coming months. Councillors are invited to indicate any schemes which they feel should be publicised in Borough News and local communications with residents and partners.

Eastleigh Borough Council 19 MATT BLYTHE

LOCAL AREA MANAGER

Date: 8 January 2019

Contact Officer: Matt Blythe

Title: COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PROGRAMME AND REVENUE PROJECTS Tel No: 023 8068 8311

e-mail: [email protected]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - SECTION 100D

The following is a list of documents which disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report. This list does not include any published works or documents which would disclose exempt or confidential information.

NONE

Eastleigh Borough Council 20 Agenda Item 8

BHH – Bursledon, Hamble and Hound Local Area Committee Thursday 24 January 2019.

Application Number: O/17/81166 Case Officer: Andy Grandfield Received Date: Friday 28 July 2017 Site Address: Land off Providence Hill, Bursledon, Southampton, SO31 8AU Applicant: Foreman Homes Ltd Proposal: Outline Application: Residential development of up to 92 dwellings, associated open space, landscaping, amenity areas and infrastructure means of access from Providence Hill. (Access, appearance, layout & scale to be considered)(Amended Description - Matters considered and housing numbers updated)

Recommendation: GRANT OUTLINE PERMISSION

Subject to (i) Comments of Ecological & Environmental Health Specialists on the amended plans; (ii) an Appropriate Assessment with comments from Natural England; (iii) planning obligation securing affordable housing & local infrastructure improvements

CONDITIONS AND REASONS

1 The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the following plans numbered: 16.115.01B, 16.115.05B, 16.115.06G, 16.15.06B, 16.115.03K, 16.115.04D 16.115.04A, 16.115.07E, 16.115.09E 16.115,124B, 16.115.125D, 16.115.126B, 16.115.200B , 16.115.201B, 16.115.202, 16.115.203A 16.115.204A 16.115.205B, 16.115.206B, 16.115.207A, 16.115.208, 16.115.209, 16.115.210A, 16.115.211, 16.115.212A, 16.115.213A, 16.115.214, 16.115.215,16.115.216. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2 The development hereby permitted shall begin either: a) No later than the expiration of two years from the date of this permission; OR b) No later than the expiration of one year from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3 No development shall start until details of the: a) landscaping of the site [hereafter called "the reserved matters"] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made within one year of the date of this permission. The development shall accord with the approved details. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

4 Prior to the construction of any building above slab level details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing

21 by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance in the interest of the amenities of the area.

5 No construction or demolition work shall start until a Construction and Environment Method Statement (CEMP) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Demolition and construction work shall only take place in accordance with the approved method statement which shall include: a) a programme and phasing of construction work, including roads, landscaping and open space; b) location of temporary site buildings, compounds, construction material and plant storage areas used during demolition and construction; c) safeguards to be used within the construction process to ensure surface water contains no pollutants on leaving the site; d) safeguards to waterways adjacent to the site to protect them from pollution impacts; e) the arrangements for the routing / turning of lorries and details for construction traffic access to the site including loading / unloading of plant & materials and restoration of any damage to the highway [including vehicle crossovers and grass verges]; f) the parking arrangements for vehicles of site operatives and visitors; g) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt generated by demolition and construction; h) Plan and details for the stock piling of soil and soil movement; i) a scheme for controlling noise and vibration from demolition and construction activities [to include piling]; j) provision for storage, collection, and disposal of rubbish from the development during construction period; k) measures to prevent mud and dust on the highway during demolition and construction; l) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; m) temporary lighting; l) temporary construction drainage system containing three forms of temporary filtration and n) protection of pedestrian routes during construction. m) safeguards for fuel and chemical storage and use, to ensure no pollution of the surface water leaving the site This comprehensive management plan shall have due regard to the details contained in the Best Practise Guidance - The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition, 2006 (London Authorities) and Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction, 2014 (Institute of Air Quality Management). Reason: To limit the impact the development has on the amenity of the locality and nearby listed building, and to ensure no adverse impact on the Solent Complex from pollution within the construction process

6 No development shall start until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be occupied

22 until the approved details have been fully implemented [unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority] and shall include: a) Details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development. b) The alignment, height and materials of all walls, fences and other means of enclosure. c) Details of the retaining structures and the method of construction. d) The details and layout of foul sewers and surface water drains, including measures for management and maintenance. e) Plans including cross sections to show existing and proposed ground levels, including proposed floor levels for each plot and their relationship to existing levels both within the site and on immediately adjoining land. f) Width, alignment, gradient, sight lines, lighting and type of construction proposed for any roads, footpaths and accesses to an adopted highway specification. These shall be designed in accordance with the Manual for Streets and any lighting shall be sited to minimise spillage and avoid impacting on flight corridors used by bats. g) Details for ongoing management and maintenance of any roads, footpaths and accesses including any future plans for adoption. h) Details of the lighting strategy to ensure no light disturbance to the retained tree roost and to ensure dark corridors corresponding to the existing bat foraging corridors around the site boundaries. Reason: To limit the impact the development has on the locality.

7 No development shall start until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: a) plans including cross sections to show proposed ground levels and their relationship to existing levels both within the site and on immediately adjoining land; b) finished floor levels for each plot; and c) width, alignment, gradient, sight lines and type of construction proposed for any roads footpaths and accesses. The development shall not be occupied until the approved details have been fully implemented, unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To limit the impact the development has on the locality and to ensure the roads are built to an adoptable standard.

8 No development shall start until details for the disposal of foul sewerage from the development hereby permitted, and a timetable for its implementation, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision of foul water drainage.

9 Notwithstanding the information submitted to date no development shall start until details of a naturalised sustainable drainage system have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the SuDS layout; at least 3 filtration processes within the treatment train to ensure no pollutants leave the site; a timetable for its implementation and a management / maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development [including the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or

23 any other arrangements to secure the effective operation of the sustainable drainage system and to maintain operational water quality throughout its lifetime]. The system shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure satisfactory drainage for the development and to ensure no impact on the Solent Complex, from pollution within the operational phase

10 No development shall start until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall cover all hard and soft landscaping [including trees and boundary treatments] and provide at least a 15m buffer of naturalised habitat adjacent to the Windmill Field Wood SINC; appropriate buffering to ensure protection of headwater springs a; and details of timings for all landscaping and any future maintenance. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and to the appropriate British Standard. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the locality, to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and to protect and enhance the designated habitats within the SINC and the Solent complex.

11 No development shall start until a landscape and open space management plan, detailing private and public areas, with a maintenance schedule has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape and open space shall thereafter be managed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

12 Notwithstanding the information submitted to date, no development related works shall take place on site until a revised Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan (B.S.5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction) that informs the final layout is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Method Statement shall be adhered to in full in accordance with the approved plans and may only be modified subject to written agreement from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To retain and protect the existing trees which form an important part of the amenity of the locality.

13 No development related works shall commence until a site meeting has taken place with the site manager, the retained consulting arboriculturalist and a representative from the Local Planning Authority for each phase of the development. Work cannot commence until the Local Planning Authority officer has inspected and approved the proposed tree protection. Once approved no access by vehicles or placement of goods, chemicals, fuels, soil or other materials shall take place within fenced area. The fencing shall be retained in its approved form for the duration of the work. All other aspects of the Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Method Statement will be addressed at this meeting. This tree condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development subject to satisfactory written evidence of monthly monitoring and compliance by the pre-appointed tree specialist during construction. Reason: To retain and

14 Prior to the commencement of development a detailed bat mitigation strategy

24 shall be submitted informed by a climbing, endoscope and / or emergence survey of the trees suitable for bat roosts (as agreed with the Local Planning Authority in advance); and a plan showing the locations of bat boxes for mitigation and enhancement together with timing of their provision and a monitoring regime; - the extent and location of at least one dark corridor adjacent to the SINC to provide prime bat foraging habitat; and - a lighting plan that protects the foraging corridors used by bat species and along riparian corridors. The development shall accord with these approved details. Reason: To ensure bat roosts and foraging and commuting corridors are protected.

15 Prior to the commencement of development a detailed noise mitigation strategy and plan to address highway noise shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority. The details shall demonstrate how satisfactory internal and external noise standards will be met in accordance with the recommendations of the Noise Impact Assessment dated 11 December 2018 (Ref: AC102141-1R8) with reference to construction, glazing, mechanical ventilation, acoustic screening. The approved noise mitigation measures shall be fully installed and verified as performing as expected prior to the first occupation and shall thereafter be retained. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

16 Before development commences a programme of archaeological evaluation for the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. It shall detail: (i) Submission of a Written Scheme of Investigation detailing an overarching programme of archaeological assessment. The agreed Written Scheme shall be implemented on a phase-by-phase basis prior to the commencement of the relevant phase. (ii) The implementation of the programme of archaeological mitigation of impact in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation on a phase by phase basis (iii) On completion of archaeological fieldwork within each phase a report will be produced in accordance with an approved programme including where appropriate post- excavation assessment, specialist analysis and reports, publication and public engagement. The development must accord with these approved details. Reason: To assess and mitigate the impact of the development on any archaeological deposits and to contribute to our knowledge and understanding of our past.

17 Prior to the occupation of each dwelling building (or, in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) an as built SAP data and water calculator confirming energy efficiency and the predicted internal mains water consumption to achieve the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: 1) In respect of energy efficiency, a standard of a 19% improvement of dwelling emission rate over the target emission rate as set in the 2013 Building Regulations being equivalent to and not exceeding the requirement as set by Code Level 4 (as defined by ENE1) in the, now revoked, Code for Sustainable Homes. 2) In respect of water consumption, a maximum predicted internal mains water consumption of 105 litres/person/day, i.e. the equivalent requirement as set by Code Level 4 (as defined by WAT1) in the, now revoked, Code for Sustainable

25 Homes. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To support a comprehensive approach to high quality design across the site; in line with the guidance set out in the Government’s Ministerial Statement of 25 March 2015 which states that Local Planning Authorities should, from the date of its publication, take into account the government’s intentions in the statement

18 Prior to the first occupation of any residential dwelling within each individual phase of development an as built stage SAP data, and an as built stage water calculator confirming energy efficiency and the predicted internal mains water consumption; which shall meet the requirements set out in condition 24 above; shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To support a comprehensive approach to high quality design across the site; in line with the guidance set out in the Government’s Ministerial Statement of 25 March 2015 which states that Local Planning Authorities should, from the date of its publication, take into account the government’s intentions in the statement “and not set conditions with requirements above a Code level 4 equivalent”.

19 No construction or demolition related activities or deliveries to the site shall take place during the construction period except between the hours of 0800 to 1800 Mondays to Fridays or 0800 to 1300 on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings.

20 No burning of materials obtained by site clearance or any other source shall take place during the demolition, construction and fitting out process. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.

21 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning [General Permitted Development] Order 1995 [or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification], no development permitted by Classes A-E of Part 1 and Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the order shall be carried out within the identified ‘protected view’ as shown on drawing no. 16-024-02 Rev L without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the visual setting of the Bursledon Windmill.

22 No development shall take place until an ecology management strategy, including long-term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for the Windmill Fields Wood Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) abutting the southern boundary, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Each phase of the development must demonstrate compliance with this strategy through the submission of a landscape and ecology management plan and implementation report and the development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved strategy and details. The strategy and

26 plan shall include the following elements: - detail extent and type of new planting (NB planting to be of native species) - details of maintenance regimes - details of any new habitat created on site - details of any new wetlands/SUDs created on site and their future management - details of treatment of site boundaries and/or buffers around water bodies - details of management responsibilities. Reasons: This condition is necessary to ensure the protection of wildlife and supporting habitat found on the site and to secure opportunities for the improvement of wildlife corridors and wider enhancement of the nature conservation value of the site in line with national planning policy

23 No development shall take place until a landscape and ecology management strategy for the site, including long-term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscaped areas (except privately owned domestic gardens), been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Each phase of the development must demonstrate compliance with this strategy through the submission of a landscape and ecology management plan and implementation report and the development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved strategy and details. The strategy and plan shall include the following elements: - detail extent and type of new planting (NB planting to be of native species) - details of maintenance regimes - details of any new habitat created on site - details of management responsibilities. Reasons: This condition is necessary to ensure the protection of wildlife and supporting habitat found on the site and to secure opportunities for the improvement of wildlife corridors and wider enhancement of the nature conservation value of the site in line with national planning policy. Reasons: This condition is necessary to ensure the protection of wildlife and supporting habitat found on the site and to secure opportunities for the improvement of wildlife corridors and wider enhancement of the nature conservation value of the site in line with national planning policy.

24 No development shall start until a scheme of work detailing the extent and type of piling proposed has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall accord with the approved details. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.

25 Prior to the construction of any building above slab level the design details and management / maintenance arrangements for the acoustic bund and fencing (acoustic barrier) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. In support of the design of the acoustic barrier, written confirmation from a suitably qualified acoustic consultant shall be provided along with the above details that the acoustic barrier meets the recommendations set out in the Noise Impact Assessment dated 11 December 2018 (Ref: AC102141-1R8). The acoustic barrier shall be installed prior to first occupation and thereafter retained in accordance with the approved details and management plan. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.

26 Prior to the construction of any building above slab level details of the necessary infrastructure, including ducting and cabling, to facilitate the provision

27 of high speed communications technology have been submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. The infrastructure must then be provided for use upon first occupation of the buildings hereby permitted and retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure connectivity and to reduce the proliferation of individual masts, aerials, satellite dishes and wiring in interests of visual amenity.

27 No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall include full details of any basins, swales and other features, a planting and landscaping strategy, safety measures and a management and maintenance plan. The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including the 100 year (30% climate change allowance) critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, both on and off site.

28 The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the ecological reports (Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, ecosupport ltd, July 2017; Bat Surveys, ecosupport ltd, July 2017; Reptile Survey Report, ecosupport ltd, Revised July 2017) Reason: To protect and enhance biodiversity.

29 In the event that during the construction process undiscovered areas of contamination are exposed or found all work within this area shall cease and contact made with the Local Planning Authority to agree an investigation and remediation strategy. No work shall commence in this area until the submission and approval of the strategy. Development must accord with the agreed strategy thereafter. Reason: To protect the environment and personnel on site

30 No vegetation clearance shall occur on site during the bird nesting season [between 1st March & 31st August] unless supervised by an appropriately qualified ecologist. Reason – To prevent harm to breeding birds

31 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the associated areas to be shown on the plan to be approved for the parking of vehicles shall have been made available, surfaced and marked out. The parking area shall then be permanently retained and reserved for that purpose at all times. Reason: To make provision for sufficient parking for the purpose of highway safety.

32 The landscape scheme must be completed within 12 months from the completion of the last building shell, or by such later date as the Local Planning Authority may determine. Any trees or plants which die, are removed or become

28 seriously damaged or diseased during the first five years must be replaced during the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory landscaping.

33 Prior to occupation details of any external lighting, including street lighting, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting scheme shall follow the advice and guidance of the Institute of Lighting Professional (ILP)'s publication "Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light". Reason: To protect the amenities from light pollution.

34 All hard & soft landscaping, tree planting and boundary treatments shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and to the appropriate British Standard. For a period of no less than 5 years after planting, any trees or plants which are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of the same species, size and number as originally approved in the landscaping scheme. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the locality and to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents.

35 The garages provided shall only be used for the purpose of parking private motor vehicles in connection with the residential use of the properties and shall not, at any time, be used for living accommodation, business, commercial or industrial purposes. Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of on site parking for the purpose of highway safety

36 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Eastleigh Borough Council takes a positive approach to the handling of development proposals so as to achieve, whenever possible, a positive outcome and to ensure all proposals are dealt with in a timely manner.

Under the Town and Country Planning England Regulations 2012, a fee is required for Discharge of Condition Applications. N.B. Conditions not fully discharged, invalidate the planning permission.

Note to Applicant:

In respect of the Construction Environment Management Plan, the applicants are advised to refer to BS 42020:2013, Clause 10, for a comprehensive list of issues and activities that may be considered and included within a CEMP.

The applicant/developer should enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure required to service this development. Please contact Southern Water, Southern House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire, SO21 2SW or www.southernwater.co.uk

A formal application for connection to the water supply is required in order to service this development. Please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (34) or www.southernwater.co.uk

29 Due to changes in legislation that came into force on 1st October 2011 regarding the future ownership of sewers it is possible that a sewer now deemed to be public could be crossing the site. Therefore, should any sewer be found during construction works, an investigation of the sewer will be required to ascertain its condition, the number of PL_Final Decision properties served and potential means of access before any further works commence on site. The applicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Southern Water, Southern House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire, SO21 2SW (tel: 0330 303 0119) or www.southernwater.co.uk

Note to Applicant: British standard BS 10175:2001 Investigation of potentially contaminated site-Code of Practice is a useful source of advice on site investigation. Further information and advice about developing contaminated land can be found on the Council’s website or by contacting the Council’s Environmental Health Team.

Note to Applicant: A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Southern Water, Sparrowgrove House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire SO21 2SW (Tel 0330 303 0119) or www.southernwater.co.uk.

This application has been referred to Committee because it is contrary to the adopted development plan and is controversial.

Introduction

1. This is an outline planning application which seeks an approval for 92 residential units with all matters to be considered (layout, access, appearance and scale) except for landscaping which would be applied for under a separate Reserved Matters application. The access is via the permitted access on to Providence Hill through the residential site approved in 2016 (allocated as BU1).

2. The original application for up to 200 dwellings including land to the rear of Orchard Lodge and land to the south east of the site which have now been omitted. The amount of development has been amended on a number of occasions dropping to 147, 130, 99, 91 and now finally rests at 92 units with the developable area amended to reflect site constraints and a reduction in the overall site area. The very recent increase from 91 to 92 units is to facilitate the provision of 1 additional affordable units by converting a 3 bed dwelling in to 2no. one bed maisonettes. This change is so minor the

30 supporting assessments do not need to be adjusted to reflect this modest increase in unit numbers.

3. The application follows the granting of permission and construction of 62 dwellings on land to the south and east allocated (BU1) within the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2011-2029) February 2014.

4. The amended “detailed” layout plan and supporting information seek to demonstrate that the site can accommodate up to 92 dwellings of varying sizes and styles. The internal road layout , footways and drainage features within the site, key landscape features including trees for retention, public open space and 2no. equipped play areas as well the elevational appearance and floor layout of the residential units are all submitted for consideration. The scheme no longer proposes development on land previous secured as Pubic Open Space (POS) under planning applications O/14/74322 Land at Providence Hill and Orchard Lodge.

5. The main design principles include:-

 Design based on perimeter block principles with houses located to face onto the residential streets, open space and the site boundaries.  Design reflecting the level changes across the site but predominantly two storey with some 2.5 storey apartments.  A range of property sizes and types including affordable housing  An urban block of residential properties along the northern boundary to the M27 to mitigate traffic noise.  The existing landscaping features become an integral part of the development retained through the centre and edges of the site  Areas of open space in the centre and eastern end of the site, with two equipped play areas.  Links for cycles and pedestrians to Orchard Lodge and Dodwell Lane with main vehicle link to Providence Hill  Ecologically sensitive sustainable drainage features  Green corridors passing through and along the boundaries of the development.  Acoustic bund and fence (total 3m high) along boundary with the M27

6. The 92 dwellings are proposed and consist of 59 open market dwellings and 33 (35.8%) affordable units, with the following mix :

 2 x 1 bed apartments  24 x 2-bed flats  24 x 2-bed houses  42 x 3-bed houses

7. The application is also accompanied by the following reports and technical assessments:-

31  Design and Access Statement  Planning Statement  Transport Assessment and automated traffic survey  Framework Travel Plan  Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal  Sustainability Statement  Arboricultural Impact Assessment and tree survey  Biodiversity Checklist  Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey  Revised Reptile Strategy  Breading Birds Survey  Bat Survey  Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy  Desk Based Archaeological Assessment  Heritage Statement  Noise Assessment  Air Quality Assessment  Phase II Ground Investigation Report  Photomontages and 3D visuals  Affordable Housing Statement  Public Art Strategy  Statement of Community Involvement  Draft Heads of Terms

8. Under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2017 the Council has screened the development, as the site area is on the threshold of requiring a screening, and confirm that this is not an EIA development and an Environmental Statement is not required.

9. Whilst no objection was received initially by Natural England to the large development (200 units) case law has changed resulting in an Appropriate Assessment needing to be undertaken under the Habitat Regulations. Previously officers and Natural England concluded that, with the mitigation proposed and conditions to control impacts, no significant likely impacts on European Designated sites would occur as a result of the development and a full HRA is not required. However, conditions to secure mitigation can no longer be relied upon and full details of any mitigation are required prior to a decision being finalised, as such the views of the Borough Ecologist are awaited on this issue.

The site and its surroundings

10. The application site is situated to the northeast of Bursledon Village, adjoining the A27 Providence Hill and is close to the urban area of Bursledon. The site and surrounding land is currently designated as countryside and within a local gap within the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 (adopted Local Plan). The site abuts development sites at Orchard Lodge and Providence Hill, whilst being visible from residential properties on Providence Hill, Dodwell Lane and further afield. The northern boundary is defined by

32 fencing and the M27. Adjoining the southern boundary of the site is Windmill Fields Wood Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and to the west is the Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area with the Grade II* Listed windmill.

11. Providence Hill is a 40mph “A” road with footpaths on either side, the southern side of which is to be upgraded to a cycle/footpath. The site is located in a sustainable location being within 450m from the village centre, 550m from Tesco superstore, close to a bus route and 1.25km from Bursledon railway station.

12. The site has a varied and undulating topography with the site dropping by approximately 11m from the north western most point to the south eastern boundary. Off-site to the south is a watercourse passing through the valley in to which surface water run-off would pass, eventually leading to the River Hamble.

13. The site comprises of predominantly paddocks used for the grazing of horses with an area in the centre of the site used by a dog training school. The boundary to the M27 is well screened by existing trees (off-site) of varying species and quality. Areas of scrub, trees and hedging can be found on all other boundaries and passing through the site on a north/south axis.

Relevant planning history

14. The relevant history of this site and those adjoining is;

 O/16/78514 – Outline proposals for 200 units on land to known as Misery. Withdrawn December 2016  O/14/74322 – Outline permission for 62 dwellings with access from Providence Hill. Approved October 2014  R/16/77966 – Reserved Matters approval for 62 dwellings pursuant to outline permission. Approved September 2016  C/14/74932 - Outline application: Residential development of up to 29 houses at Orchards Lodge Approved December 2015  C/16/77959 - Reserved matters application: Residential development of 29no. dwelling at Orchards Lodge. Approved November 2016  F/16/79496 – Construction of 3no. dwellings with access from Windmill Lane within the grounds of Orchard Lodge. Approved February 2017.  F/17/80282 – Construction of 1no. dwelling within the grounds of Orchard Lodge. Permitted September 2017.

Representations received to the planning application

15. To the original scheme of 200 units 32 letters of objection on the following grounds;

 Highway impacts - increased traffic on congested network, unsuitability of the access for 262 units, a single access point to an estate, impact on local businesses

33  Pedestrian links – no safe access towards Hedge End or the Country Park  Over development – emerging Local Plan proposes 50 units on this site, encroachment in to conservation area, 7 developments in very close proximity to each other,  Local Gap / Countryside Gap – scheme falls within both the adopted and emerging “gap” designations.  Prematurity – Development being considered in advance of the Local Plan being considered at a Public Inquiry. Recent Council paper against development on Hamble Peninsular.  Visually intrusive – loss of openness, will be viewed from A27/M27, from developments to the north and the conservation area  Noise – impact on residents from the M27  Open space and Green Infrastructure – Loss of POS secured as part of adjoining developments, net loss overall, no green infrastructure provided,  Impact on SINC – construction impact, long term management issues, all of SINC not within developers ownership,  Impact on protected species – lack of translocation space for slow worms, loss of habitat north of Orchard Lodge,  Ecology – loss of hedgerows connecting wildlife corridors, reduction in birds  Archaeology – need to preserve and protect features on site.  Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area – loss of wildflower meadow, destroy views to and from the Conservation Area,  Inadequate infrastructure – health facilities, schools,  Drainage – aggravate flooding problems at the railway bridge/Church Lane area  New housing to be for local need not driven by profit. Scheme is not affordable housing for younger families.  Accident and Health & Safety risks

16. 1 letter of support on grounds of;

 Dwellings are not visible from the main road  This is better location than Hamble Lane

17. Renotification on the amended plans for 141 units and latterly the 91 units has generated 15 letters of objection raising the following issues:

 Traffic generation and inadequate capacity on the highway.  Highway safety around nearby junctions  Single access point is inadequate, unsafe and untested  Providence Hill should have speed limit reduced from 40mph to 30 mph.  Loss of mature hedging and trees along A27 frontage exposes the site  Visually intrusive, urbanising and accentuate visual loss of Local Gap.  Over development of local area  Impact on Local Gap  Loss of greenspaces including open space previously secured.  Air pollution  No justification for the development

34  Lack of education and health infrastructure  Direct development to brownfield sites  Impact on ecological features and habitats including wildlife pond, reptiles and bird nesting  Impact on the Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area and outlook from it.  Increased noise pollution and poor living environment for new residents  Over development of the site allocated for 50 dwellings in the submitted Local Plan (2016 – 2036)  Impact on Windmill Fields Woods SINC from existing temporary access road, breaks in hedgerow habitat and encroachment from development to the south.  Potential impact on archaeological assets within the site.  Poor and inadequate new landscaping

Consultation responses

18. Since undertaken initial consultation on the proposed development, the plans have been amended reducing the site area and subsequent number of dwellings from 200 to 91 dwellings. Where relevant, consultees have been reconsulted on the revised plans.

19. Local Plan Team (Strategy) – no comments received on the principle of development but reference made to the site’s assessment under the SLAA and draft allocation in the 2011 – 2029 Local Plan.

20. Landscape & Design Specialist - (based on 130 units) Observations to date include the development would benefit from hierarchy from roads throughout the site, a variety of density would assist, connectivity seems reasonable but to be judged by site, parking is all within curtilage and no visitor parking noted. Limited street trees.

21. Previous comments on withdrawn scheme (similar developable area to the 141 units plan) – Detailed site analysis needed given the relationship to the Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area, the complex topography of the site, constraints relating to tree cover and hydrology and noise from the M27 and full explanation of design. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is a little disconnected from the site design assessment and wireframe models of the scale / bulk of buildings would be beneficial.

22. Heritage Officer – (Comments on previously withdrawn scheme for 200 units)- This proposal is a further erosion of the Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area with both houses and gardens within the area reducing the open rough grassland taking the windmill at Grade ll* status of national importance even further out of context. If the setting is to be impacted, significant contribution to its maintenance fund should be extracted in recompense. The remainder of the development being further away, down the hill and not interrupting views of either the windmill or its associated buildings, does not cause any great problems.

35 23. HCC Highways – No objection (Comments summarised based on plans for 141 and 200 units)

24. The access is of adequate capacity to accommodate the estimated trips that would be added as a consequence of this site and is subject to a current S278 design check. The two locations with a high quantum of incidents (Windhover Roundabout and junction with Portsmouth) both have improvements proposed and contributions are sought towards these schemes.

25. The trip rates confirm that a development of 130 units would generate 83 trips during the morning peak period (08.00-0.900) and 81 trips during the evening peak period. This is considered to be an acceptable assumption to the Highway Authority. A 60-40% trip assignment split heading South/ North out of the access has been agreed with the County Council, although this could be altered post improvements to Windhover Roundabout. The site access and Windmill Lane junction with Providence Hill will operate within capacity, whilst the A27 Providence Hill / Portsmouth Road junction will operate over capacity and improvements are necessary in the form of signalised junction, to which a contribution is sought. Both the A27 Providence Hill / Dodwell Lane junction and A27 Bridge Road / Swanwick Lane junctions would also be over capacity and the contributions are sought towards an improvement scheme. Windhover roundabout is to be improved as part of the Highway England proposal which is due to begin March 2020. The capacity of this junction will be increased such that this development can be accommodated.

26. Public transport provision is acceptable and pedestrian crossing facilities are to be improved as part of the approved scheme to the south. Pedestrian facilities within the vicinity of Portsmouth Road / Providence Hill would require improvements and contributions are therefore sought towards this. The development would need to contribute to improving strategic cycle routes on Portsmouth Road and Bursledon Road. The Travel Plan is of a good standard but will require some additional information before being secured by HCC.

27. To mitigate the development a full Travel Plan and Construction Management Plan are required and construction of the access as set out on drawing 15.2545-1007. A total financial contribution is considered necessary to off-set the development related impact is secured in order for any future improvement to be implemented in line with the County Council’s A27 corridor study work towards the following;

 A27 Providence Hill / Portsmouth Road junction  Providence Hill / Dodwell Lane junction  A27 Bridge Road / Swanwick Lane junction  Portsmouth Road / Bursledon Road pedestrian and cycle routes

28. Environmental Health Specialist– Comments on amended scheme awaited. Previously, based on 141 units a holding objection was raised.

36 29. Noise – The site should be considered high risk with the predominant source in this case being the M27. The removal of the ‘developable area’ on the higher noise parts of the site is welcomed. The noise report, which proposes a 6m high noise bund / fence, suggests external noise levels in gardens would be policy compliant (Less than 55 dBA) whilst internal noise levels would be acceptable, albeit positioning of windows and non-sensitive room types need careful consideration. Construction impact can be mitigated via securing a CEMP.

30. Air quality – No objection (based on 200 units). The application is accompanied by a report assessing conditions currently on the site by monitoring nitrogen dioxide. It is found that nitrogen dioxide is unlikely to exceed national air quality objectives on this site and as such there is no principled reason for objection on these grounds. The report concludes that the impact of traffic generation from the operational phase of the development would overall likely have a negligible impact on air quality for existing receptors. Provided that the underlying traffic data upon which this prediction relies is accepted by the LPAs traffic expert, no objection is raised.

31. Contaminated Land – (based on 200 units) Subject to the applicant providing clarification about the lack of groundwater sampling and borehole response zones, the recommendation is that the development be conditioned to require an agreed scheme to address; a contamination discovery strategy; imported soil chemical standards; and soil management on site.

32. Housing Enabling Specialist – No objection in principle. The development should make provision for 35% affordable housing units (32 no.) and be split between rented units (65%) and intermediate / shared ownership housing (35%) pepper-potted through the development in clusters of 10 – 15 units. Noted that 75% of apartments are for affordable (not reflective of overall mix) and no 2no. bed dwellings are provided for affordable. Furthermore, whilst meeting the minimum internal space standards the 2no. bed apartments and the three bed units do not provide an increased space standard for larger families. All affordable units are to be built to Lifetime Homes Standards with 3% of the affordable units being built to Wheelchair Accessible Standards (These shall be 1 or 2 bed ground floor accommodation).The affordable housing units must be developed in accordance with HCA required standards in addition to any specific requirements of the Affordable Housing Provider.

33. Borough Tree Team - No objection. The extent of development has reduced and impact on trees has lessened. A detailed arboricultural method statement and Tree Protection Plan to be secured via conditions.

34. Borough Ecologist - comments are awaited on the amended plans. Previous comments on the proposed 130 dwellings sought a Dormouse survey and recommended conditions including development in accordance with the habitat / bat / reptile surveys, landscape and ecology management strategy and method statement/construction environmental management plan.

37 35. Commitments have been made to connect the green infrastructure with surrounding developments in order to maintain connectivity to the wider landscape. Mitigation measures included for birds, SINC, trees and hedgerow are sufficient. The reptile translocation strategy is adequate but further detail will be required prior to the start of work on site with regards to management of the receptor site, and confirmation that drainage within the receptor site is sufficient to prevent the stream from flooding it. There also appear to be inconsistencies between the reptile mitigation and the landscape strategy masterplan, which shows footpaths going through the area designated for hibernacula. Overall, there is a commitment to biodiversity benefits through provision of bat / bird boxes, retention and improvement of hedgerows and provision of green corridors.

36. Due to its proximity to several European Sites, the scheme has the potential to impact upon them, particularly in combination with other developments in the area. A contribution to the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project will aid in mitigating this impact.

37. Parks & Open Space Manager – (based on 200 unit scheme) no objection in principle and welcome the provision of two Local Equipped Areas of Play (LEAP). Detailed considerations to include ease of access from paths for people/emergency services, gradient of banks to SUDs features, publicity of LEAP on sales literature, management and maintenance plans/commuted sums for the Public Open Space and SUDs features. Support provision of clear network of paths linking the various areas of POS.

38. Head of Direct Services – (based on 200 unit scheme) No objection subject to compliance with adopted SPD and swept path analysis to ensure refuse vehicles needing to reverse no more than 10m. Comments awaited on the amended plans for 91 units.

39. HCC Archaeologist – No objection. Conditions recommended in respect of a programme of archaeological assessment, recording and reporting of any archaeological deposits found on site.

40. HCC Children’s Services – No objection. This development sits in the catchment area for the Bursledon Infant and Junior Schools and Hamble Secondary School. The Bursledon schools would require expanding and Hamble Secondary School remodelled to accommodate increased number of children. Contributions are sought in accordance with the County Council’s ‘Planning for School Places Guidance Document’ which sets out the methodology for assessing the impact of development on education infrastructure.

41. HCC Flood and Water Team (Lead Local Flood Authority) – Original comments raised no objection. General principles for surface water drainage proposals are acceptable subject to conditions. On amended plans, further information is requested to address contradictions within the Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy report .

38 42. Highway England – No objection to amended plans. The development is unlikely to have significant impact to the safe and efficient operation of the M27 and junction 8. Previously had advised Highways England propose to commence construction of a highway improvement scheme in the vicinity of the development prior to 2020.

43. Historic England – no comment to make on the development.

44. Natural England – No objection to amended plans. Development would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC) or damage / destroy the interest features for which Lincegrove and Hackett's Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). A Construction Environmental Mitigation Plan (CEMP) and securing contributions towards the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership (SRMP) which protects the designated features of the Solent & Southampton Water SPA should be secured. Standing advice referenced for consideration on matters related to protected species, local sites, ancient woodland environmental enhancements and access & recreation.

45. Environment Agency – (Based on original scheme for 200 units) No objection to proposal as submitted. This development is sited on the Wittering Formation which is designated a Secondary A aquifer. This is underlain by the London Clay Formation (an unproductive aquifer). It does not lie within a source protection zone. The northern part of the site is underlain by the Providence Hill historic landfill. Due to prioritising resources, the EA are unable to provide detailed site-specific advice relating to land contamination issues at this site and as an alternative highlight their published “Guiding Principles for Land Contamination” for managing risk to water environment and to liaise with the Borough’s Environmental Health team.

46. Southern Water – No objection based on 91 units. The position of the public sewer should be identified prior to work commencing with adequate protection measures included to protect it during the construction process. Initial investigations demonstrated there is currently adequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the development.

47. West Hampshire Clinical Commissioning Group – (based on original scheme for 200 units) No objection subject to contributions being secured. Our estimate of the level of additional demand that will be placed on NHS primary care does not warrant the commissioning of an additional GP surgery. The increased demand will be accommodated by the existing GP surgeries. The CCG considers that the application should be required to make an appropriate financial contribution to the capital investment that the NHS will make in this regard. Comments on amended plans awaited

48. Southern & Scottish Electric – Note that there are SSE assets on the land.

49. Eastleigh & Southern Parishes Older Persons Forum – No comments received

39 50. Bursledon Rights of Way and Amenities Preservation Group – Objection raised. A poor living environment in this ribbon development is of no benefit to residents with development (previously) proposed on public open space. Poor connection to rights of way, green network and community facilities. Developer contributions to be diverted to Hamble Lane rather than improve the A27. Loss of views from Windmill Woods.

51. Winchester and Eastleigh Design Review Panel – (Based on original plans) Although an outline application, the illustrative plan appears to demonstrate 200 units could be accommodated on the site. However, the scheme fails to make best use of the site’s attributes to create an interesting and individual scheme and appears to be a much engineered solution which fights against the site and is not sufficiently design led. The illustrative plan should be used for “capacity” purposes only and any detailed design work to be developed around the sites features and constraints. The density appeared too uniform, greater consideration needed on how this scheme joins the neighbouring developments and a centre or heart to all the developments in this immediate area needs to be provided.

52. Bursledon Parish Council - objected to scheme for 91 units on grounds of Highway safety (access arrangements, single point of access, increased and cumulative impact of traffic, pedestrian links and safety, speed limit, lack of parking). Concerns raised on loss of wildlife areas secured on other development proposals, lack of opens space / green space and links to green space, impact on SINC, over development on this site and wider area, impact on health facilities and schools, poor safe route to schools, noise impact on new residents and increase noise from M27 due to loss of trees and detrimental to Windmill Conservation Area, poorly sited LEAPS, no parking plan for development, not in accordance with submitted Local Plan (50 units) and potential to see area designated an AQMA. Diversion of S106 funds from A27 to Hamble Lane.

53. Hamble-le-Rice Parish Council – (Based on original scheme for 200 units) objected on grounds of traffic impact on Hamble Lane and Windhover Roundabout and air quality, However, if the development is approved contributions should be secured to reduce congestion along Hamble Lane.

Policy context: designation applicable to site

 Bursledon – Hedge End Local Gap  Outside Built-Up Area Boundary  Adjacent Established Residential Area  Adjacent a Site Of Nature Conservation Interest  Adjacent Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area  Adjacent Grade II* and Grade II Listed Buildings (Bursledon Windmill and The Granary)  Agricultural Land Value Grade 4

Assessment of proposal: Development plan and / or legislative background

40 Policy Context:

Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 (“saved policies”)

54. This site is designated countryside and Bursledon to Hedge End Local Gap within the current adopted Local Plan 2001-2011. The most relevant saved policies are as follows:-

 1.CO – countryside protection  3.CO – local gap  18.CO – landscape character  20.CO – landscape improvements  25.NC- Promotion of biodiversity unless benefits of development outweigh the adverse impacts and that the impacts are unavoidable and that mitigation measures are proposed.  30.ES – Requires refusal of noise sensitive development where exposed to unacceptable levels of noise  31.ES – Requires appropriate design, layout and sound insulation where permission is granted in above circumstances.  33.ES – Suitable air quality assessment required if new development appears likely to have a significant impact on air quality.  35.ES – Requires sufficient information to demonstrate that contaminated land can be appropriately remediated for the use proposed and that the risk of pollution to controlled waters is minimised  45.ES – Requires sustainable drainage systems  59.BE requires high standards of good design in new developments, including taking full and proper account of the context of the site.  73.H – Sites of 15 or more dwellings to be of appropriate mix.  74.H – Affordable housing.  92.T – Local Transport Plan proposals include (i) A27 Bursledon to Romsey bus priority/pedestrian/cycle access scheme  100.T – Requires development to be well served by sustainable forms of transport, to provide measures to minimize impact on the network, minimize travel demand, provide a choice of transport mode and submit a transport assessment for large proposals.  101.T - Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 targets – if exceeded requires the need for the development to be justified; for the development to provide contributions towards sustainable transport.  102.T – Requires new development to provide safe accesses that do not have adverse environmental implications and are to adoptable standard.  146.OS – Requires proposal which would have a detrimental impact on the green network to be refused and contributions from adjoining development proposals to be sought to enhance the environment.  147.OS – Requires on site provision of public open space.  165.TA – Percent for art  168.LB – Archaeological evaluation  190. IN – requires development only to be permitted where adequate services and infrastructure are available or can be provided.

41  191. IN – requires appropriate proposals to be permitted provided that arrangements have been made to either provide or contribute towards essential infrastructure.

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan 2013

55. Although part of the Development Plan, the HMWP is not relevant to this site as the site is not designated as within a mineral safeguarding zone.

Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2016-2036)

50. Strategic policies that are relevant to this scheme are:

 S1 – sustainable development  S2 – promotion of new development  S3 – housing locations  S8 - countryside and countryside gaps  S10 – green infrastructure  S11 – community facilities  S12 - transport infrastructure  S13 – footpath, cycleway, bridleway links

51. Development Management policies that are relevant to this scheme are

 DM1 – criteria for new development  DM2 – environmentally sustainable development  DM4 – low carbon energy  DM6 – sustainable surface water management  DM8 – pollution  DM9 – public utilities and communications  DM11 - nature conservation  DM13 – transport – general development criteria  DM14 – parking  DM26, Creating a mix of housing  .  DM30 – affordable housing  DM32 – minimum internal space standards  DM35 – provision of recreation and open space facilities with new development  DM36 – new and enhanced recreation and open space facilities, allotments and community farms  DM40 – funding infrastructure

52. Site specific policies

 BU1 – allocation of land to the south east for development (In 2011 – 26 LP)

42  BU3 –Land lying south east of Windmill Lane (the application site – 2016 – 36 LP)

Supplementary Planning Documents (Material Planning Considerations)

 Quality Places (November 2011)  Environmentally Sustainable Development (March 2009)  Biodiversity (December 2009)  Residential Parking Standards (January 2009)  Planning Obligations (July 2008, updated 2010)  Affordable Housing (July 2009)  Housing Mix (February 2003)  Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area Appraisal  Character Area Appraisals – Bursledon, Hamble-le-Rice and Hound (January 2008)  Supplementary Planning Document: Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Proposals

Other Relevant Documents

 Public Art Strategy  Biodiversity Action Plan for Eastleigh Borough 2012-22  Nationally Described Space Standards

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)) 2018

53.The National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘NPPF’ or the ‘Framework’) states that (as required by statute) applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. There is a general presumption in favour of sustainable development and (unless material considerations indicate otherwise). Three dimensions of sustainability are to be sought jointly: economic (supporting economy and ensuring land availability); social (providing housing, creating high quality environment with accessible local services); and environmental (contributing to, protecting and enhancing natural, built and historic environment) whilst local circumstances should also be taken into account, so they respond to the different opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas.

54.Core planning principles include;  always seeking to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity and open space  contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution  protecting biodiversity, hydrology and areas of flood risk

43 55.LPAs should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations.

National Planning Practice Guidance

52. Where material, this guidance on air quality, good design, material considerations, flood risk, contamination, noise, open space, recreational facilities, natural environment, planning obligations, travel plans, transport assessments, water supply and wastewater provision should be afforded weight in the consideration of planning applications.

Assessment of Proposal

53. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 require a local planning authority determining an application to do so in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in this case comprises the saved policies of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011, and the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (MWP) adopted October 2013, although the MWP is not relevant to this site.

54. Para 177 of the NPPF states the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment because of its potential impact on a habitats site is being planned or determined. The development is subject to an appropriate assessment, therefore whilst sustainable development principles are applied, the “tilted balance” towards sustainable development which is contrary to the development plan Is not engaged.

55. In terms of emerging policy, the Submitted Eastleigh Local Plan 2011-2029 (comprising: the Revised Pre-submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011- 2029, published February 2014; and the Schedule of Proposed Minor Changes) was submitted to the Secretary of State in July 2014 and, following examination hearings in November 2014, the Inspector issued his final report on 11 February 2015. The final report recommended non-adoption on the basis of the plan being unsound, largely due to its inadequate provision for new housing. It can therefore be considered to have extremely limited weight in the determination of this application.

56. The Emerging Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2016-2036 was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 31st October 2018 and the Council is awaiting confirmation of the date for examination. The adoption of the Local Plan is anticipated in Summer 2019. Given the status of the emerging Plan, it is considered that limited weight can be attributed to it.

57. In terms of “other planning considerations”, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) constitutes a very significant material consideration.

44 Prematurity

58. Some concerns have been raised in regard to the site not forming part of an adopted Local Plan and therefore it is premature to determine this development. Paragraphs 49-50 of the 2018 NPPF specifically address the issue of prematurity and confirm that:

‘…arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than in the limited circumstances where both: a) the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging plan; and b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area.

Refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified where a draft plan has yet to be submitted for examination…Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the local planning authority will need to indicate clearly how granting permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process.’

59. It is considered that the development proposed is neither so substantial or its cumulative effect so significant as to undermine the plan-making process.

The Principle of Development

57. The site lies outside of the defined urban edge and is designated as countryside and local gap in the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011). Saved Policy 1.CO of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) seeks to protect the countryside from inappropriate development and resists development outside the urban edge unless it is for agriculture, horticulture, forestry, development for outdoor recreational use, public utility developments and/or extensions to existing education or health facilities. The proposed redevelopment of the site for residential purposes does not fall within the range of uses deemed appropriate for countryside locations. It has been established in recent appeals that policy 1.CO is not a housing supply policy but equally that the rigid application of policy 1.CO may not allow for the future housing development that is required. Whilst only limited weight can be given to the emerging Local Plan (2016 – 2036), to meet existing and projected housing requirements some development needs to be permitted beyond the existing urban edge. However, this does not mean that all sites near to the urban edge would be considered suitable for residential development.

58. Saved Policy 3.CO seeks to protect areas designated as local gap, stating that development which would result in a physical or visual diminishment of

45 the local gap would be refused. The redevelopment of the site as proposed will have a clear impact on the physical and visual qualities of the existing local gap, albeit that the visual impacts are limited primarily to close views of the site and in its context of framed by residential development and the M27 on three sides.

59. To support the work on the emerging Local Plan, the Council has undertaken a Countryside Gap Policy Review (updated June 2018) to assess the value of allocated gaps, which in turn could be used to inform decisions on a revised urban edge. Applying the sub-regional advice from the Partnership of Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) that no more land than is included than necessary to prevent the coalescence of settlements is included in a Gap, the Landscape and Visual Appraisal of Existing Gaps in Eastleigh and the Assessment Matrices were used to identify areas that do not contribute to the physical or visual separation of existing settlements. In this review, the land south of the M27 and north of Providence Hill has been recommended for removal from the Gap. Whilst the submitted Local Plan (2016 – 2036) can be afforded limited weight, the evaluation of the Gap function is based on the guidance, settlement identity and an assessment of the impact physical developments and infrastructure and not on the needs for planning for new housing developments. Therefore weight can be applied to this assessment and the conclusion that development on this site would not undermine the identity of existing settlements.

60. The urban edge requires extending to meet housing needs and a full assessment of the Gaps, the Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA) has examined in excess of 200 sites for residential development and allocated this site within the submitted Local Plan (2016 – 2036) is suited for residential development (under Policy BU3). Whilst limited weight can be given to this allocation, it is recognised that in considering the principle of development on this site significant work has been undertaken to date in evaluating its suitability.

61. Eastleigh’s Five Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement dated March 2018 identifies the current consents for development provides sufficient housing to meet the Borough’s identified needs over the next 5.5 years without compromising sustainable development objectives. Since the introduction of the national standard methodology for calculating housing supply, the Borough’s position has improved to a 7.8 year supply of housing based on the forecast annual needs of the Borough. Planning inspectors in recent appeal decisions have supported the Council’s position on the supply of housing and so weight can be given to these figures. The Inspectors have also recognised, however, that to ensure the continued delivery of a 5 year supply of housing development on appropriate countryside sites will need to be granted.

62. A development for 70 dwellings on a greenfield site off Satchell Lane was recently allowed at appeal despite the council arguing the site was unsustainable (due to poor pedestrian links) and the healthy housing supply

46 position did not warrant the release of unallocated greenfield sites (PINS Ref: PP/W1715/W/18/3194846 and App Ref: O/17/80319).

63. The Inspector confirmed in his decision letter that saved policy 1.CO is not to be considered out of date due to age; because it pre-dates the first version of the NPPF; or because it only made provision to 2011.

64. Taking account of these matters, and the degree of consistency with the 2018 NPPF, it is for the decision maker to determine the weight to be afforded to this policy. As discussed at the Satchell Lane Inquiry, previous Inspectors have afforded between considerable/ significant to full weight. The Inspector in the Satchell Lane Inquiry took a different position, affording reduced weight to this policy as in his view it, ‘lacks the flexible and balanced approach towards the issue enshrined in the Framework’. The Council is currently considering its position in relation to this decision.

65. For the purposes of this application, Members as the decision makers should determine the weight to be afforded to this, and other policies. In advising Members and in light of the previous appeal decisions, it is the view of officers that considerable weight can be afforded to Saved Policy 1.CO

66. In conclusion, whilst this site is accepted as being contrary to the adopted Development Plan policies, the direction of travel of submitted and emerging planning policies are to be acknowledged which propose to allocate this site for housing purposes. At 92 dwellings, the site would make a meaningful contribution toward the Council’s housing supply and the applicant has confirmed is deliverable in its entirety within this 5 year period (late 2021/early 2022).

67. Subject to determining the site is considered sustainable in all other respects, as set out within the NPPF (para 11), unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of doing so, the principle of development can be accepted despite the conflict with adopted plan policies .

Sustainable Development - Environmental Sustainability

60. Environmental sustainability includes the consideration of site specific planning issues and the impacts of the development on its surroundings and local infrastructure.

The landscape and countryside

53. The assessment of the principle of development in the countryside (1.CO) and the Local Gap (3.CO) are set out above. However, whilst the principle of development beyond the urban edge and within an allocated Gap can be supported, the actual impact of the proposed scheme on its environs must be assessed.

47 54. The site is within Area 11 “M27 corridor” as defined within the Landscape Character Assessment Area (LCAA). Area 11 is a long linear area encompassing land either side of the M27, which in itself is a dominating characteristic. The varying landscape, woodland, topography and paddocks all contribute to the overall wider character

55. The original application was supported by a Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which considers the relationship of the proposed development to the existing landscape character and context of the site in terms of views of it. The LVIA notes the existing boundary planting restricts views in to the site to varying degrees, especially from the west (the Listed Windmill) with the southern boundary (Providence Hill) offering the highest potential for views from the residential properties and the public highway through trees and beyond the two sites permitted and currently under construction. The highest part of the site (Northwest – rear of Orchards Lodge) would have been most visible during and post construction but this has now been removed from the scheme, resulting in development being set 6 – 8m lower than originally proposed.

56. The change from countryside to residential would be a clear, irreversible impact that would be incapable of full mitigation, particularly when viewed close-up. The construction impact would see some topographical changes with small areas of landscaping removed to facilitate links between the parcels of land; however once developed and additional landscaping provided, the scheme would be viewed prominently through trees, or against a woodland backdrop such that the site would have limited impact on the wider LCA.

57. The impacts on visual receptors (dwellings and user of roads and footpaths), local residents and those travelling along Providence Hill and Dodwell Lane are low to moderate during construction and once developed with established landscaping, compared to the outlook on to the valley and undeveloped paddocks. Distant views from the north (Dodwell Lane) and south (Long Lane) would be more restricted and partial in nature and seen in a wider landscaped setting with other dwellings within the vista.

57. While it is noted that the Design Officer has highlighted some limitations with the LVIA, the general conclusions are not disagreed with. The omission of development on land to the rear of Orchard Lodge significantly reduces the visual impact of the development and with the dwellings being 2 storey in height, their visual impact on the wider area is not considered to be unreasonable. The submission demonstrates an acceptable relationship to existing neighbouring properties and the retention of significant amounts of landscaping including a tree belt on the edges and centre of the site ensure views into the site are not dominated by the development. The proposed development would extend the defined settlement boundary of Bursledon, but given the characteristics of the surrounding land and the proximity of the existing development it is considered that it would appear more as an infill development rather than a large extension into the open countryside

48 58. Overall, whilst it is accepted that the development of the site will fundamentally change the character and appearance of the site, resulting in the loss of an area of countryside and gap, the layout responds to the constraints and natural assets of the site. Whilst any new development will be visible from the neighbouring properties which surround the site, there will be limited impact in terms of longer range public views and there are no public footpaths crossing the site. As such, the principle of residential development on this site is considered acceptable in terms of landscape impact and is not contrary to the objectives of saved policies 18.CO and 59.BE of the adopted Local Plan and policy DM1 of the Submitted local plan.

Site capacity and layout

61. NPPF 2018 has placed greater emphasis on achieving well-design places stating good design is a key aspect of sustainable development (para 124) and that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area (Para 130).

62. Although an outline application, layout is a matter for consideration and the Council is satisfied the quantity of development can be adequately accommodated on the site. The previous iterations of the site plan proposed excessive amounts of development having taken in to account the constraints such as the site’s topography, the presence of a watercourse and woodland all of which needed to be buffered and protected. The latest amended plans have reduced the site area to that allocated within policy BU3 of the submitted Local Plan (2016 – 2036) and now omits any development on previously approved Public Open Space.

63. The SLAA work identified the site as suited to “approximately” 50 dwellings on site with a total area of 5.4 ha but a developable area of 1.7ha developed at a density of 30 dph. This was a high level assessment and not informed by the suite of surveys and assessments produced by the applicant in support of the development proposal. This additional work has identified the developable area to be larger than forecast and proposes a slightly higher density to make efficient use of the site and align with minimum densities sought by policy DM23 in the Submitted Local Plan (2016 – 2036). The site layout proposes dwellings, the would achieve a density considered appropriate in this location and an efficient use of the land.

64. The plans include a minimum of a15m buffer to the SINC woodland and accommodates buffers to the existing green corridors passing through the site to ensure the vegetation and ecologically corridors and sensitive habitats are protected and retained. Development is offset from the northern and southern boundaries allowing for a network of paths around the site in reasonable settings, as well as Sustainable Drainage features (SUDs) being afforded sufficient space to be provided without reliant solely on engineered and mechanical solutions. The layout provides 0.2ha of POS with a play area in the centre of the site and areas of less formal open space predominantly around the boundaries of the site, sufficient to meet the needs of the 92 units.

49 In addition, there is good connectivity to the extensive open space secured through other developments that are adjoining the proposed site. Cumulatively, there is a significant over provision of POS across all the developments such the neither quality of the development nor the amenity of the residents would be detrimentally affected.

65. The layout is quite traditional in its form, with the proposed housing being designed to address the road, creating active frontages and a sense of enclosure to the new streets, together with overlooking of the public areas. To a degree the layout has been influenced by its constraints including the motorway (and its noise), the access point and presence of existing vegetation. It is noted that the minimum internal floor space is provided for each house type when compared to the National Described Space Standards, however in the absence of an adopted Local Plan policy on this matter and the proposed range of house sizes proposed, the mix and style of units are considered acceptable.

66. The levels across the site have been addressed by providing greater separation between properties (27 – 30m) to take account of the circa 1.5m difference in finished floor levels. The boundary treatment between the properties and how this land is engineered would need to be finalised and secured via conditions, thereby ensuring privacy is protected when in the new properties.

67. All of the dwellings meet the adopted parking standards as well as providing a policy compliant number of formal and informal visitor parking spaces across the development. Bin and cycle storage is provided for all the properties and can be serviced adequately. The private amenity space meets standards and is suited to the size of the dwelling, whilst the gross internal floor space meets minimum National Described Space Standards. Further plans have been provided to provide greater detail on the change in levels across the site to ensure the “back to back” distance between properties on a sloping site protect the amenity of future occupiers of the properties.

68. Overall, the scheme responds to the constraints and can provide an attractive development whilst accommodating the number of dwellings proposed.

Minerals

69. Advice on minerals is contained with the adopted Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan 2013 (in which the site is within a designated Minerals Safeguarding Area) and the NPPF. The prior extraction of minerals, where practicable and commercially feasible, is sought in advance of non-mineral development. This site does not fall within a Mineral Safeguarding Area therefore a Mineral Assessment is not required.

Protecting the most valuable agricultural land

70. The site consists of Grade 4 agricultural land and is used for the grazing of horses. Policy 4.CO of the adopted Local Plan was not saved; however

50 emerging policy DM13 of the deposit Local Plan resist the permanent loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a. The NPPF advises in paragraph 112 that "local authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land [and that] where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality".

71. As grade 4 agricultural land, the site meets the requirement advocated within the NPPF that where significant agricultural land is to be lost, less valuable land should be considered. In this instance, the Council are of the opinion that the development would not result in the unacceptable loss of agricultural land and is not contrary to paragraph 112 of the NPPF.

Heritage Asset and Listed Building considerations

72. There are no known archaeological sites within the development area, but the site does have some potential to contain previously unidentified archaeological remains. The lack of archaeological evidence from the site and immediate vicinity should be viewed as much a reflection of the lack of archaeological investigation as a genuine indication of absence of archaeology. HCC Archaeologist has raised no objection to the scheme but has requested a programme of archaeological work secured through suitable conditions attached to any planning consent that might be granted.

73. The amended plans have removed the development from within the Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area, which it now abuts. Within the conservation area is Bursledon Windmill a Grade II* Listed Building and the Grade II Listed Granary building. The NPPF states that planning should conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance set out how the impact on the significant of the heritage asset needs to be considered. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. As a Grade II* structure Bursledon Windmill must be afforded significant protection, including its setting, and development that may undermine this should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.

74. The amended plans have removed development from within the conservation area and would be separated by a belt of trees and hedging avoiding an unacceptable visual or physical impact. The development proposal is set significantly lower than the Windmill and screened completely by the dense woodland of Windmill Field Woods to the west. Existing short and long distance views of the windmill are not undermined such that it is the conclusion of officers that the proposal does not undermine the setting of either the listed buildings or the conservation area. Historic England offered no comment and the concerns raised the Borough Heritage officer are noted but these were made on the larger developable area that eroded the fields that formed part of the conservation area.

51 75. The heritage assets adjoining the site are adequately protected ensuring compliance with the guidance contained within the NPPF, saved policy 168.LB and emerging policy DM10.

Access proposals, traffic impact and sustainable modes of transport

76. The site is located outside of the urban edge and has no direct access to Providence Hill other than via the approved access that passes through the adjoining Providence Hill scheme. A number of local objections to the proposals relates to traffic generation from the development and the inability of the existing road network to accommodate this traffic without resulting in further congestion and queuing.

77. The updated Transport Assessment (TA) based on 91 dwellings assesses the impact of the scheme with the trip rates, trip distributions and junction capacity assessments being acceptable to HCC. The development is estimated to generate 54 trips during the morning peak period (08.00-0.900) and 53 trips during the evening peak period. A 60-40% trip assignment split heading South/ North out of the access has been agreed with the County Council. When added to the recently approved developments in the locality this would result in a peak increase in traffic on Providence Hill by 4.2 % (AM) and 5.4% (PM) which cumulatively is considered to have a minimal impact on the local road network. The TA identifies a number of junctions that are close to / at capacity and schemes for improvements to the junctions of the A27 with Portsmouth Road, Dodwell Lane and Swanwick Lane have been agreed with HCC to which contributions can be secured through a planning obligation.

78. HCC state the access is suited to serve the existing development under construction and the proposed scheme before members, with S278 works well advanced. The arrangements include the creation of a bellmouth junction with Providence Hill, with a right turn lane ghost island. The provision of the right turn lane is to ensure the free flow of traffic along Providence Hill. In order to accommodate the turning lane the road will be altered slightly and a pedestrian refuse added to facilitate the crossing of the road. The access would deliver the required visibility splays of 2.4m x 120m and be constructed to adoptable standards. The siting of the access was been influenced by the location of the mature trees, the presence of a drain along within the verge and the difference in levels between the highway and the application site. The amended plans no longer propose development to gain access from Windmill Lane.

79. The site is in a sustainable location in terms of the proximity to local facilities and transport infrastructure. The scheme would offer improvements to pedestrians/cyclists crossing Providence Hill to access Lowford village where shops, medical facilities and other services are located. The site also continues the footpath link from Dodwell Lane through to Windmill Lane improving the site’s permeability.

80. A Travel Plan framework has been submitted and setting out various measures to reduce single occupancy car trips, again in accordance with the

52 principles of sustainable development. A condition is recommended to secure this, together with a contribution to be secured to its monitoring.

81. The site is located on a bus route with bus stops on the northern and southern carriageway of Providence Lane within 100 - 200m of the site access. The frequency of service is reasonable (at two buses an hour) with two services (no4/4A First in Hampshire and no15 Brijan) providing access to Gosport, Southampton and Hedge End, whilst the railway station is 1.25km to the south. Overall the site has realistic alternatives to the use of the car.

82. In terms of the principle of the development of the site for the level proposed, the level of traffic impact is not considered to result in any severe adverse impact to the operation of the existing highway network, and not at a level which would justify a refusal of planning permission, as referred to in para 109 of the NPPF. Overall, in light of the above, the proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of the proposed means of access and highway safety issues, as well as providing improved pedestrian and cycle links in the local area. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with the guidance contained in saved policies 59.BE, 100.T, 102.T and 191.IN of the adopted local plan and submitted policies within the LP (2016 – 2036). .

Noise, vibration and contamination issues

83. Saved Policy 30.ES of the adopted Local Plan states that proposals for noise- sensitive development, including residential uses, which would result in the occupiers of such development being exposed to unacceptably high levels of noise will not be permitted. This policy is consistent with that of Paragraphs 170 and 180 of the NPPF which respectively require that planning should always seek a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers of land and buildings, and that the planning system should prevent new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, amongst other things, unacceptable levels of noise pollution

84. A noise survey has been provided taking in to account noise generated from traffic on the M27 and Providence Hill. The report concludes that development can be delivered without causing harm to the amenity of future residents with the provision of a bund surmounted with a fence totalling 3m in height along the boundary with the M27. The structure whilst tall would be screened by the existing dense tree screen along the motorway boundary and through appropriate planting can ensure the visual impact is mitigated when viewed from the development. The detail layout and elevations propose an almost continuous built form which will also protect the rest of the development to ensure that external private area but the noise assessment does note that a number of properties will have to have a higher glazing specification whilst most will have to be provided with alternative ventilation as an alternative to opening windows.

85. The Environmental Health Specialist comments on the latest noise assessment and the amended plans are awaited. Based on previous plans

53 and noise assessments, whilst noting the site was highly sensitive to noise, the use of engineered solutions to provide appropriate internal noise environment and the ventilation as well as considering the internal layout of the dwelling to place noise sensitive rooms away from the motorway was recommended.

86. The impact of noise and vibration during the construction period is not considered to be unacceptable in principle; the final details can be address via a construction impact management plan condition.

87. The submitted desk based assessment of contamination concludes that risks to the proposed use are low and can be controlled through conditions. The Head of Housing and Environmental Health supports this conclusion subject to confirmation the lack of groundwater sampling and borehole response zones.

Air Quality

88. The NPPF states new development should not contribute to or be out at risk from unacceptable levels of air pollution. It continues that policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards national objectives for pollutants, taking into account Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites. Development plan saved policies 32.ES and 33.ES and emerging local plan policy DM7 require any impacts upon air quality to be assessed in this regard.

89. The application has been submitted with an air quality assessment which notes the site is located adjacent to the M27, which is considered to be a significant source of road traffic emissions. It is also less than 1km from the Hamble Lane Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). As a result of six month monitoring period, it is considered that the entire development site is suitable for the proposed end-use without the inclusion of on-site mitigation measures. Furthermore, based on the predicted traffic movements associated with this development there would be a negligible impact on receptors including the AQMA. The Environmental Health Specialists concurs with these conclusions.

90. The principle of residential development on this site is acceptable subject to the detailed conditions referred to above, and is considered to be in accordance with Saved Policies 30.ES, 31.ES and 33.ES of the adopted local plan, policy DM7 of the emerging Local Plan and the NPPF.

Trees and Ecology

91. The application is supported by an extended phase 1 habitat survey and surveys for reptiles, breeding birds and bat surveys. The phase 1 survey notes the site is predominantly semi-improved grassland with some broad leave woodland and scrub. The woodland to the south is a SINC designated for ancient woodland qualities and a buffer of 15m is required respectively to protect it from the development. This buffer has been provided but not a habitat management plan or an ecological principles statement. Whilst the

54 Borough ecologist raised concerns on the original scheme officers are confident the principle of development can be approved with the submission of these details secured via a condition. Buffers are also proposed to existing hedgerows and trees such that habitats are protected from the physical impact of the development. However, the comments of the Borough Ecologist are awaited on the amended plans.

92. The detailed drainage strategy includes provision for 3 forms of naturalised filtration and up to 5 forms of treatment in total. The full details of this can be secured via condition, as can a SINC management plan, to ensure the hydrology regime and future health of the wet woodland and watercourses are not undermined.

93. With regards to protected species, slow worms have been found on site and agreement had previously reached to translocate them to the open space to the rear of Orchard Lodge. A dormice survey identified no evidence of dormice on or adjacent to the site. A bat survey has identified the presence of 5 species of bat, principally using the southern and western boundary landscaping for foraging. The level of detail provided is sufficient to ensure development would not undermine the habitat or foraging areas for bats with the retention of boundary landscaping. It is recommended that a further survey of suitable roost habitat be undertaken prior to development commencing and mitigation measures (20 bat boxes) being set out in a biodiversity habitat mitigation and management plan. The breeding birds survey identified no red list birds on site, but one amber list and 14 green list and a recommended package of mitigation would need to be secured via condition if this scheme were to be approved. No badge setts were identified in site.

94. Natural England has stated that there is the potential for an adverse impact to the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area, due to increased recreational pressures and disturbance. Appropriate mitigation measures are therefore required which in this instance can take the form of developers’ contributions towards the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project.

95. The site is subject to a blanket tree preservation order to enable the LPA to control the extent of any tree removal on site. To facilitate the access, an oak and a maritime pine (cat B) were removed, which permission has already been granted for. The reduction in developable area has resulted in in the retention of a further group of lower quality trees previously proposed to be felled.

96. The provision of any access from Providence Hill will necessitate the felling of trees but as proposed, the access location avoids the highest quality trees and offers a woodland backdrop to the western side of the road minimising views in to the site. The borough tree officer has advised the loss of these trees is acceptable subject to a detailed landscaping scheme that offers a net gain in trees within the site. On balance the development is in accordance with Policy 47.ES of the adopted local plan.

55 97. Critical is securing the opinion of the Borough ecologist and this will be secured prior to committee and Members updated verbally.

Drainage and flood risk

98. The application site lies within Flood Zone 1 which is considered to have a low risk of flooding and the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (FRA) demonstrates that the development would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere, subject to the implementation and management of a Sustainable Urban Drainage system (SUDs). The site is not suited to infiltration of surface water, therefore an indicative drainage strategy has been provided which proposes up to 5 forms of treatment, including 3 natural filtration solutions (catch pits, storage tanks, linked swales and attenuation pond with bypass separators) before entering the watercourse at a controlled rate. .

99. HCC Flood and Water Management previously raised no objection subject to conditions initially but have sought further clarification on the amended information. The views of the Borough Ecologist are essential to consideration of the issue of water quality which in turn will inform the Appropriate Assessment required to be undertaken by the LPA under the Habitats Regulations. Subject to these views, this indicative scheme provides sufficient detail that a full drainage strategy can be designed to serve this scale of development, controlling flow rates and water quality.

104. Southern Water confirmed that they can provide a water supply to the site and that there is adequate capacity in the local network to provide foul water sewerage disposal to service the proposed development. .

105. Based on the information provided the development of this site accords with saved policies 25.NC, 41.ES, 42.ES, 45.ES and submitted policies DM6 and DM5.

Residential Amenity impacts

100. While the construction of the proposed development would result in an increase in noise and disturbance in the area, this would not be a permanent impact and subject to securing a Construction Management Plan via a condition it is not considered that there would be a significantly detrimental impact that would warrant refusing the application.

101. For the reasons given, the proposals are not deemed to be in conflict with the requirements of Saved Policy 59.BE (vii.) of the adopted Local Plan in respect of the matter of the residential amenity for either existing or future occupiers.

Sustainability Measures

106. The NPPF, Saved Policies 34.ES and 37.ES of the local plan, Policies S1, DM2 and DM3 of the submitted local plan require development to be sustainable in terms of resource use, climate change and energy use. In

56 March 2015 a Ministerial Statement announced that the Code for Sustainable Homes would cease to be applied to new development, although the requirement to still achieve the Code’s levels for energy efficiency and water consumption remains. If permission were to be granted any future reserved matters application would have to meet the energy and water standards.

Economic Sustainability

107. One of the core planning principles of the NPPF is proactively to drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver, amongst other things, the homes that the country needs.

108. As with any new housing the proposed development would bring people into the area which would be a continuing economic benefit that would support growth in the local economy. A New Homes Bonus would also be paid and the development would create construction jobs. In addition, the proposed development would result in financial contributions being secured to offset certain impacts of the development, such as transport contributions towards improvements in the local network and contributions towards the provision of enhanced community infrastructure.

109. Provided they are appropriately secured and outweigh the adverse impacts of the scheme, these elements are all considered to be benefits in the planning balance and overall it is considered that the development would be economically sustainable. However, it should be noted that these benefits could also be accrued from a development of this size in a different location.

Social Sustainability

102. In accordance with saved policy 190.IN of the local plan development is only to be permitted where adequate services and infrastructure are available or suitable arrangements can be made for their provision. Where facilities exist but will need to be enhanced to meet the needs of the development, contributions are sought towards provision and improvement of infrastructure. A development should also offer a mix of house types and tenures to ensure a balanced and thriving community. The applicant has been working with the LPA on a draft S106 and has agreed to the principle of the obligations sought.

103. The application proposes a range of house types, sizes and tenures would be provided, including 35% affordable housing (shared ownership and affordable rented) in accordance with Saved Policy 74.H of the adopted Local Plan and Policy DM30 of the subitted Local Plan. The Council’s adopted Affordable Housing SPD is also a material consideration, as the NPPF which aspires to “deliver a wide choice of high quality homes in inclusive and mixed communities to meet the needs of different people”. The Housing Enabling Specialist supports the proposal

104. The proposal also includes the provision of public open space and 2no. Locally Equipped Play Areas (LEAPs) which could be used by local residents and is considered to be a benefit in the overall planning balance.

57 Contributions would also be secured to improve off-site community infrastructure in accordance with relevant adopted policies and the adopted SPD on Planning Obligations. As with the economic benefits, the provision of additional housing and open space could also be accrued from a development of this size in a different location.

Education and Health

105. The capacity of local schools has been considered in assessing the proposed development and infrastructure requirements. Hampshire County Council, as the Local Education Authority, has advised the development site is served by Bursledon Infant and Bursledon Junior School. Both schools are currently full and have no places available to cater for the additional children that this development would yield. Hamble Secondary School is also at capacity. Consequently additional school places to cater for primary age and secondary age children will need to be provided and contributions secured via planning obligation to facilitate an appropriate expansion of education facilities.

106. The Clinical Commissioning Group has assessed the impact of the development on existing health facilities and seeks a financial contribution towards improvements to the existing local facilities, which would be secured through the S106.

Deliverability

107. The application would provide for up to 92 dwellings and it is considered that a site of this size would be delivered within the five year period and thus would contribute to the housing land supply. The developer anticipates subject to this scheme being approved that the Reserved Matters for landscaping would be submitted late spring, commencement of development in November 2019. At this stage the first house is programmed to be ready for occupation by Spring 2020 and development concluded by late 2022. In order to encourage its early delivery the standard time-frame for submission of reserved matters approval could be reduced by 1 year.

Planning Obligations/development benefits

108. In accordance with the guidance contained within the NPPF, Saved Policies 74.H, 101.T, 147.OS and 191.IN of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), Policies DM35, DM38 and DM40 of the Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2016 - 2036, the Council’s ‘Planning Obligations’ SPD and the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations, there is a requirement for developers’ contributions to ensure on and off-site provision for facilities and infrastructure made necessary by the development, or to mitigate against any increased need / pressure on existing facilities. This is in addition to the requisite on-site provision of affordable housing.

110. If permission is to be granted then contributions / obligations towards the provision of the following infrastructure and requirements would need to be

58 secured via a Section 106 obligation, index linked as per the Planning Obligations SPD and HCC requirements.

a) Provision of 35% affordable housing on site; b) Provision of on-site public open space and 2 no. LEAPs, plus future management and maintenance responsibilities, including commuted sums for maintenance if adopted by the Council; c) Provision of on-site pedestrian link from Dodwell Lane through to Orchard Lodge; d) Provision of the access works; e) Street tree maintenance; f) Financial contributions towards: i. Primary and Secondary Education ii. Off-site sports and recreation provision or improvement iii. Community infrastructure iv. Off-site highway junction improvements and strategic cycle network; v. Health Provision vi. Public art vii. Solent Recreation Mitigation Project

111. The applicant has agreed to enter in to a Planning Obligation.

112. The projects and measures identified for contribution expenditure will comply with the 3 tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy 2010, in that the monies would be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, would go towards projects that are directly related to the development, and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. The contributions would be index-linked to ensure the contributions rise in line with the costs of providing the identified projects/measures. The obligations sought are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and to meet the needs generated by the new residents and the potential impact on existing services and facilities.

Conclusion

113. Section 38(6) of the Act states a scheme contrary to the development plan should be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is a strong material consideration including its desire for LPAs to boost housing delivery and where policies are out of date, such as housing policies, support development unless the adverse impacts outweigh the benefits of the development. Saved Policy 1.CO is not considered to be a policy for the supply of housing, however some revisions to the urban edge are necessary to meet the forecast housing needs for the emerging plan period up to 2036.

114. The Council have a 7.8 year Housing Land Supply exceeding the minimum requirement set out in the NPPF of 5 years. This delivery of housing on this site should it be permitted would be in addition to those sites contributing the current 5 year HLS position.

59 115. The development of this site would be contrary to saved policies 1.CO (development in countryside) and 3.CO (Local Gap) of the adopted Development Plan (2001 – 2011).In support of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2016 – 2036), the Gap Review recommends exclusion of this site from a Gap and this carries some weight as a landscape assessment based on the function of this land as a means of protecting the identity of settlements. Of less weight, is the recommendation following the SLAA that this site be included within a revised urban edge and be allocated for residential development.

116. It is accepted that the proposed development would give rise to certain benefits, notably in terms of housing provision, including affordable housing. There would also be social benefits through an increase in public open space provision, landscaping and financial support to the delivery of infrastructure in the locality. In addition there would be the economic benefits due to construction, an increase in local population, payment of New Homes Bonus and financial contributions secured via a S106 planning obligation. However, it should be noted that these financial and infrastructure benefits are not site- specific or over and above what could be achieved on another site.

117. In assessing any harm the development would cause, it is considered that the development would not affect the function of the Local Gap in protecting the individual identity of Hedge End or Bursledon. Similarly while it would alter the wider setting of the heritage assets it is not considered that the impact on their significance would be significant. Subject to the view of the Borough’s ecologist, the ecological impact on protected species and their habitat, water quality and flow can all be avoided or mitigated. As such it is considered that, on balance, the development would be environmentally sustainable.

118. It is considered therefore that the benefits of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm caused by it and therefore the proposed development is considered to be sustainable.

119. Subject to consideration of the (i) views of the Borough ecologist, Environmental Health Specialist and HCC Flood Water Team; (ii) Finalising an Appropriate Assessment and consulting Natural England; and (iii) completion of a Section 106 agreement for planning obligations and the recommended conditions outline permission is recommended to be granted.

60

61 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9

Bursledon, Hamble and Hound Local Area Committee – Thursday 24 January 2019

Application Number: F/18/83586 Case Officer: David Huckfield Received Date: Wednesday 15 August 2018 Site Address: 1-3 Oakdene, Windmill Lane, Bursledon, SO31 8BG Applicant: Mrs Tracey Buckland Proposal: Change of use of paddock land to the rear of 1-3 Oakdene to site 6 additional mobile homes, construction of associated amenity buildings and erection of 3m high barrier fence along part of the north-eastern and the south-eastern boundaries.

Recommendation: PERMIT

CONDITIONS AND REASONS:

(1) The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the following plans numbered: 8727-12, 8727-15. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

(2) The development hereby permitted shall start no later than three years from the date of this decision. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

(3) The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than Gypsies and Travellers as defined by Annex 1 of the Department for Communities and Local Government document 'Planning policy for traveller sites'. Reason: The site is within designated countryside and not usually considered suitable for new residential development.

(4) No more than 6 mobile homes kept for human habitation and 6 caravans kept for touring shall be stationed on the land at any one time. Reason: The site is not considered suitable for additional mobile homes and in the interests of amenity.

(5) No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the external storage of materials, and no vehicles over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on the site. Reason: In the interests of amenity.

(6) The acoustic fencing hereby approved along the north-eastern and south-eastern boundaries of the site shall be installed prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved. The fence shall thereafter be retained. Reason: In the interests of providing a satisfactory level of amenity for the occupiers of the development.

63 (7) The air quality mitigation measures for unit 6 shall accord with the recommendations as set in paragraph 6.2 of the submitted Air Quality Assessment (REC, Reference: AQ105125R4, June 2018). These measures shall be installed prior to the occupation of the unit and shall thereafter be retained. Reason: In the interests of providing a satisfactory level of amenity for the occupiers of the development.

(8) The development hereby permitted must not be brought into use until the areas shown on the approved site layout plan (Drawing No. 8727- 12) for the parking of vehicles in connection with the development shall have been provided and made available for use. The parking areas must thereafter be retained for this purpose for the lifetime of the development. Reason: To provide an adequate level of on-site parking in the interests of highway safety and amenity.

(9) The development must accord with the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment (ref: OAKDENE-AIA-TCP, dated 23.10.2018) and Method Statement (ref: OAKDENE-AMS-TPP-16.05.2018). Tree Protection must be addressed as per the Tree Protection Plan enclosed within the report. No excavation, demolition or development related works shall commence until evidence has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority to demonstrate that the tree protection measures have been installed, as detailed in the Tree Protection Plan. Once approved, no access by vehicles or placement of goods, chemicals, fuels, soil or other materials shall take place within the fenced area. Tree protection measures shall be retained in their approved form for the full duration of the work. Reason: To retain and protect the existing treescape in the interests of the amenity of the locality.

(10) The tree works to be carried out as detailed within the approved Arboricultural Impact Assessment shall be supervised by a suitably qualified ecologist. Should any evidence of bat roosts be found, work shall cease and the trees be preserved in situ and an appropriate mitigation strategy shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The tree works / felling shall not thereafter be carried out until this strategy has been approved and the development shall accord with the approved details. Reason: To ensure roosting bats remain free from harm or disturbance.

(11) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, the following details shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval:

 A detailed lighting scheme designed to minimise the impact on bats; and,  The location and specification of wildlife boxes (for example for bat roosting and bird nesting) to be installed within the development in accordance with the recommendations of the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Aven Ecology, April 2018).

64 The approved measures shall thereafter be implemented prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved. Reason: To ensure the protection of wildlife and supporting habitat and to secure opportunities for the enhancement of the nature conservation value of the site.

(12) Should any tree, scrub or other vegetation clearance works be carried out between the months of March to August inclusive, these works shall be supervised by a suitably qualified ecologist. Reason: To avoid disturbance to birds during the breeding season.

(13) No construction, demolition or deliveries to the site shall take place during the construction period except between the hours of 0800 to 1800 Mondays to Fridays or 0900 to 1300 on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings.

(14) No burning of materials obtained by site clearance or any other source shall take place during the demolition, construction and fitting out process. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.

Note to Applicant: In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Eastleigh Borough Council takes a positive approach to the handling of development proposals so as to achieve, whenever possible, a positive outcome and to ensure all proposals are dealt with in a timely manner.

Note to Applicant: It is requested that the building works, including any deliveries, are carried out considerately to minimise disruption to the occupiers of the neighbouring properties and not cause obstruction to the public highway. The council operates a code of best practice, which is available on the council's website www.eastleigh.gov.uk by following the links to Planning, Guidance on the process, scroll down to Guidance on Aspects of the Planning & Construction Process and select considerate builders’ advice note.

Report:

1. This application has been referred to Committee by the Lead Specialist for Housing and Development.

Description of application

2. The application seeks approval for the change of use of the paddocks at the rear of the application site to allow for the expansion of the current gypsy site through the provision of 6 additional pitches; increasing the

65 total authorised number from 3 to 9. The proposals include the provision of 6 mobile homes as well as 3 pitched roof, single-storey amenity buildings. The latter are proposed to be subdivided into 2 and will provide ancillary toilet and kitchen / living facilities for each of the additional pitches. In addition, the scheme incorporates the provision of areas of hardstanding and car parking at a ratio of 2 spaces per mobile home, with access to the proposed pitches being from Windmill Lane through the existing plots (known as 1-3 Oakdene). A 3m high timber fence is proposed to be erected along the south-eastern and part of the north- eastern boundaries of the site as part of the noise mitigation measures for the scheme.

3. The additional pitches would be occupied by a combination of the teenage children of the existing occupants who already reside on the site (four pitches), with the remainder (two pitches) being occupied by elderly/dependent relatives of the applicant, who currently do not permanently reside on the site.

The site and its surroundings

4. The application site comprises of a roughly rectangular parcel of land which extends to an area of approximately 0.39 hectares and is presently subdivided into 3 plots, which each benefit from planning consent for the siting of mobile homes for occupation by gypsies. The plots are accessed from Windmill Lane to their north-eastern side, with each containing a mobile home, areas of hardstanding and a mix of single-storey wooden outbuildings, with their southernmost portion presently being laid to grass and utilised as ancillary paddocks. There is presently an unauthorised additional mobile home on plot 3 (the easternmost part of the site). This home would be re-sited as part of the application proposals. In terms of its topography, the site slopes gently downwards from west to east, with its boundaries being defined by wooden fencing, with trees, shrubs and hedging beyond this.

5. The site is situated outside of the urban edge and within both designated countryside and local gap within the Council’s adopted Local Plan and lies at the eastern end of Windmill Lane, with the M27 motorway running parallel with the site’s eastern boundary. This section of Windmill Lane is semi-rural in nature with ribbon development of mixed character at varying junctures and degrees of setback along its length, with these being interspersed by green fields ,with highway boundaries largely being marked by trees and planting. The site is bordered to its western side by a private access track which leads to the fields to the south of the site.

Relevant planning history

 Z/34792/001/00 – Retrospective application for the retention of a gypsy site consisting of 3no. mobile homes, 2no. stores and 1no. stable block and construction of 2no. additional stable blocks with hard standing – Allowed on Appeal (11/05/2004)

66  F/05/53766 – Change of use of land from countryside to a long stay residential caravan site for two caravans – Permit (01/06/2005)

Representations Received

6. Three letters of representation have been received in relation to the application, two in objection and one in support.

7. The matters raised in objection area are as follows:

 The proposals will create a larger volume of vehicles, including cars, vans and lorries, using the lane.  The units will result in an increase in the number of families on the site and an increase in the level of noise and disturbance.

8. The letter of support stated that they understood the desire to have young, elderly and unwell family members together to support each other on a day to day basis.

Consultation Responses

9. Bursledon Parish Council – No objection.

10. Hampshire Highways – No objection on highway grounds. Access into the site is unchanged, whereby the existing three access points are utilised for the additional mobile homes and there is adequate space for refuse bins to be located in un-obstructive positions.

Whilst parking has not been assessed as this is a function of EBC as Local Parking Authority, a review suggests the appropriate number of spaces is provided and that adequate space is given for the turning of vehicles within the site to enable forward gear access and egress.

11. Environmental Health Specialist – No comments received.

12. Tree Officer – No objection subject to conditions following the receipt of an updated Arboricultural Impact Assessment report.

13. Biodiversity Specialist – Ideally the development would be located from under the tree canopies to ensure no impact on the tree roots or the canopies themselves. If the tree officer is happy with this then this concern is removed. It is noted that the drainage letter described the mobile home base differently to that set out in the tree report.

The tree report states that some trees will need pruning as a result of the mobile homes being located under the canopies. Pruning should be kept to a minimum. Trees should be checked for bat roosts by way of a watching brief prior to any tree work commencing, should any be found further survey work should be undertaken. It was also advised that any pruning or vegetation removal should take place outside of the breeding

67 season (March to August) with a condition being recommended in this regard. Further conditions were requested regarding external lighting and landscaping.

Queries were raised concerning whether any drainage information had been provided and whether the existing building in the SW of the site was being retained as this had been identified as having low potential for roosting bats. If it is being altered or removed, further survey work may be required.

Policy Context: Designation Applicable to Site

 Outside Built-up Area Boundary  Within Designated Countryside  Within Designated Local Gap

Legislative provisions, development plan saved policies, emerging local plan policies, SPD’s and National planning policy

Legislative provisions:

14. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 require a local planning authority determining an application to do so in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan

15. At the current time the Development Plan for the Borough comprises the Saved Policies within the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001- 2011) and the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (October 2013).

The Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011

16. The Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 (the adopted Local Plan) was adopted in May 2006. In November 2008, the Council submitted a list of proposed Saved Policies to the Secretary of State with a request that they be saved until they could be replaced by a new Local Development Framework. The policies detailed below were saved and are considered to be of relevance to the development proposals.

17. Saved Policy 1.CO is a countryside protection policy which seeks to prevent inappropriate development within designated countryside whilst accommodating the needs of development which is genuinely appropriate and whereby a countryside location is justifiable required or necessitated. This policy states that planning permission will not be granted for new development, unless: it is necessary for agricultural, forestry or horticultural uses; it is for an outdoor recreational use or genuinely required as ancillary to such a use; it is essential for the provision of a public utility service or the appropriate extension of an existing education

68 or health facility which cannot be located within the urban edge; or, it meets the criteria in the other policies within the local plan. In addition, Saved Policy 3.CO relates to development within Local Gaps and states that planning permission will only be granted if such development cannot be acceptably located elsewhere; and it would not diminish the gap, physically or visually.

18. Saved Policy 25.NC of the adopted Local Plan states that development which will adversely affect a habitat or feature of importance for wild fauna and flora will not be permitted, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that: (i) the benefits of the development outweigh the adverse impacts (ii) the adverse impacts are unavoidable, and (iii) appropriate measures are taken which would mitigate or compensate for any adverse impact.

19. Saved Policy 30.ES of the adopted Local Plan states that proposals for noise-sensitive development, including residential uses, which would result in the occupiers of such development being exposed to unacceptably high levels of noise will not be permitted. Saved Policy 32.ES states that proposals for uses which may generate air pollution, will only be permitted if the Borough Council is satisfied that they have been designed to control their impact to an acceptable level.

20. Saved policy 59.BE requires development to take full and proper account of the context of the site including the character and appearance of the locality and be appropriate in mass, scale, materials, layout, design and siting. It also requires a high standard of landscape design, that development has a satisfactory means of access and layout for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, makes provision for refuse and cycle storage and avoids unduly impacting on neighbouring uses through overlooking, loss of light, loss of outlook, and noise, disturbance and fumes.

21. Saved Policy 87.H relates specifically to proposals for gypsy sites and states that these will be permitted provided that they meet three specified criteria, which are: they should be within a reasonable distance of schools, medical services, shops and other facilities; they make appropriate provision for access and parking; and, they should not have an unacceptable impact on the character or appearance of the countryside.

22. Saved Policies 100.T, 101.T and 104.T refer to highway related matters and respectively require that development be sited where it is, or could be, well served by sustainable modes of travel, includes measures that minimise its impact on the highway network, and provides for adequate off-road parking to serve the development or use proposed.

Emerging Local Plan Policies

Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029, July 2014:

69 23. The Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 was submitted for examination in July 2014 but the Inspector concluded that insufficient housing was being provided for in the Plan and that it was unsound. While this has not been withdrawn and remains a material consideration, it can therefore be considered to have extremely limited weight in the determination of this application.

Emerging Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2016-2036:

24. Following The Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 being found unsound, the Council has prepared the Emerging Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2016-2036. The Plan has been subject to public consultation (Regulation 19), the period for which ran from 25 June until 8 August 2018, and has subsequently been submitted to the Secretary of State for examination (on 31 October 2018). The Council is now awaiting confirmation of the date for examination with the adoption of the Local Plan being anticipated in summer 2019.

25. Within this plan, the site remains within designated countryside and forms part of the countryside gap which separates the settlements of Hedge End and Bursledon. The site is also notably subject to policy BU6 which encompasses an allocation for 1 additional gypsy and travellers pitch, albeit this seeks to allocate the part of the site which is already laid out as a travelling community pitch and, contrary to what is stated within the supporting text for the policy, already benefits from planning permission.

26. In respect of this application, with the exception of BU6 which is referenced above, the other relevant policies of the 2011-2029 and 2016- 2036 plans essentially echo the requirements of those of the adopted local plan as listed above and are not therefore considered to effect the recommendation put forward.

Supplementary Planning Documents / Associated Guidance

 Quality Places  Residential Parking Standards  Eastleigh Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (February 2017)

National Planning Policy

27. At a national level, The National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘NPPF’ or the ‘Framework’) is a material consideration of significant weight in the determination of planning applications. The National Planning Practice Guidance provides additional guidance in support of the Framework and should be afforded weight in the consideration of planning applications.

28. With specific regard to development pertaining to gypsy and traveller sites, the Government’s planning policy is set out within the document ‘Planning policy for traveller sites’ (August 2015), which should be read in

70 conjunction with the NPPF and PPG. This document, inter alia, sets out a definition of “gypsies and travellers” for the purposes of national planning policy and requires that local planning authorities identify and maintain a supply of specific deliverable sites which address the likely permanent and transit site accommodation needs for gypsies and travellers in their area.

Assessment of Proposal

Principle of development

29. The site lies outside of the urban edge and within designated countryside within the Council’s adopted Local Plan and to which Saved Policy 1.CO applies. This policy contains a general presumption against new development, unless: it is necessary for agricultural, forestry or horticultural uses; it is for an outdoor recreational use or genuinely required as ancillary to such a use; it is essential for the provision of a public utility service or the appropriate extension of an existing education or health facility which cannot be located within the urban edge; or, it meets the criteria in the other policies within the local plan.

30. In the latter regard, Saved Policy 87.H relates specifically to gypsy site provision. This policy states that proposals for gypsy sites, which includes extensions to existing sites, will be permitted provided all of the following criteria are met: they should be within a reasonable distance of schools, medical services, shops and other facilities; they should make appropriate provision for access and parking; and, they should not have an unacceptable impact on the character or appearance of the countryside. The principle of the development proposed is therefore considered to be acceptable subject to these criteria, as well as those of the other relevant development plan policies, being met. These matters are considered in the following sections below.

The need and justification for the development

31. As noted above, government policy in respect of traveller sites is set out within the DCLG document ‘planning policy for traveller sites’ (August 2015). This policy sets out a definition of the term “gypsy and traveller” and places a requirement on local authorities to make sufficient provision for sites / pitches to address the needs of gypsies and travellers within their area. It is necessary, therefore, in assessing the proposals put forward to consider the matters of compliance with the definition set out within this policy document in regards to the intended occupiers of the pitches, whether there is a demonstrable and justifiable need for the development within this location, and if so whether this need could be otherwise met by existing provision / alternative accommodation elsewhere.

32. In regards to the matter of the satisfying of the planning definition of gypsies and travellers first of all, the aforementioned policy document sets

71 out (within paragraph 1) that for the purposes of the policies contained within it, this means: “persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependents’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily, but excluding members of an organised group or travelling showpeople or circus people travelling together as such.”

33. As part of the background evidence for the emerging Local Plan (the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2016-2036), the Council commissioned the undertaking of a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment for Eastleigh (February 2017) (herein after referred to as the GTAA). This document seeks to understand the accommodation needs of the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople population for the Borough with its findings being based upon a combination of desk-based research and stakeholder interviews and engagement with members of the travelling community living on all known sites. In addition, it sets out a range of criteria (within paragraph 3.26) which are used to determine compliance with the above set out definition.

34. These criteria include: whether the household members have travelled in the past and recently; their reasons for travelling and where they have travelled to; when and if they have stopped travelling and why; and, if so, whether there is an intention to travel again in the future. The family of the applicants were not able to be interviewed as part of the GTAA and therefore this assessment did not include a conclusion as to whether or not they met these criteria and as such the planning definition. In this regard, therefore, the application is accompanied by a supporting statement which, amongst other things, addresses this matter.

35. This statement explains that the family regularly travel throughout the UK and Ireland for economic purposes, as well as to horse fairs and family gatherings, during which they will often stay in touring caravans. In addition to this information, a number of statements from third parties have also been provided in relation to the matter of the gypsy and traveller status of the proposed occupiers and the activities that they undertake. These include letters from persons whose land the applicants have stayed upon when travelling to different parts of the country, local schools that the children have attended, as well as the Hampshire Ethnic Minority and Traveller Achievement Service (part of Hampshire County Council). It is also a material consideration that Mr Albert Rogers who currently resides on the site and whose children would occupy 2 of the 6 additional pitches was found to satisfy the planning definition by the Planning Inspector who granted the original consent for the current use of the site under planning reference Z/34792/001/00.

36. In regards to the other criteria within the requisite definition, as noted above these include whether or not the intended occupants have ceased travelling and, if so, whether there is an intention to resume. In this respect, the supporting information provided sets out that one of the

72 proposed occupants has ceased and is unlikely to resume travelling due to old age and ill health. Whilst a person who has ceased travelling permanently is generally precluded from the definition of a gypsy or traveller, it is evident within the information provided that this is occupant has previously travelled and is reliant upon the care of their family members who are existing occupants of the site. Taking account of these personal considerations, it is not considered in this particular instance when taking account of the reason for them ceasing travelling that they should be precluded from the definition of a gypsy or traveller and, accordingly, it is therefore accepted that each of the intended occupants of the proposed pitches satisfies the planning definition as set out within government policy and the Council’s own GTAA.

37. In regards to assessing the matter of need, the government’s planning policy for traveller sites requires that local planning authorities, when considering planning applications for traveller sites, take into account the existing level of local provision and need for sites, the availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants, and the other personal circumstances of the applicant. As set out within the assessment, only the need arising from those households who have been identified as meeting the planning definition and from those of the unconfirmed households who subsequently demonstrate that they meet it (including through the planning application process) are considered as need arising from the assessment. The proposed occupiers fall within the latter with, as noted above, the households present on the site not having been interviewed as part of the GTAA process and thereby falling within the category of ‘unconfirmed’ need.

38. The GTAA estimates that of those 11 households identified as falling within this category within the borough, that up to a total of 4 additional pitches may be required to accommodate need over the plan period, with this figure being estimated based upon a national average of 10% of those who claim gypsy or traveller status actually meeting the planning definition. The application proposal includes the provision of 6 additional pitches, which is more than the aforementioned total estimate for the unconfirmed need in the borough. This figure is however only an estimate with the households in question not having been interviewed as part of the GTAA process and therefore the needs of those who meet the definition, as is the case with the applicants, being unknown. It is necessary therefore to have regard to the particular circumstances of the case in each instance.

39. In this regard, four of the intended 6 occupants are teenage children of the existing occupants of the site, with each of them currently residing on the land. As set out within the GTAA, when considering the matter of future need, it is necessary to have regard to older teenage children who are in need of a pitch of their own, with the applicants having advised that for cultural reasons children require their own mobile home when reaching the age of 16. Two of the aforementioned four children are over the age of 16, whilst the others are just under 16. In respect of the other two

73 proposed occupants, these are older family members of the applicant, being her aunty and mother, who for health and/or age related reasons each have a dependency upon the applicant and their other family members who live on the site.

40. Whilst acknowledging therefore that the proposals represent a significant intensification of use on the site with an increase from 3 to 9 pitches, the application demonstrates that the intended occupants meet the planning definition of gypsy and travellers and that there is a justifiable need for the additional pitches for which permission is sought. Taking account of the personal circumstances of the occupiers which include their direct family ties and, in some instances, their dependency on the existing occupiers, it is considered to be reasonable in principle for this to be accommodated on this site. Any planning approval is however subject the proposals being acceptable in terms of their other impacts, including upon the character of the area and amenity, as well as in terms of their highways, ecological and arboricultural impacts. These matters are covered in the relevant sections below.

Layout, design and impact on the character of the area and local gap

41. In terms of the impact of the proposed use on the character of the area, the government’s planning policy for traveller sites guidance (Policy C: Sites in rural areas and the countryside) sets out that “when assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi-rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community”. The proposals represent what is a significant intensification of use on the land with a 200% increase in the number of mobile homes (from 3 to 9 units), as well as the provision of dayroom structures and areas of hardstanding, which collectively will have an urbanising impact upon the site.

42. The development is however proposed to be wholly contained within the parameters of the existing site with the additional mobile homes and relatively low profile single-storey ancillary structures being situated on what are currently subdivided paddock areas associated with the existing authorised pitches on the land. The site is also particularly self-contained from its surroundings with dense vegetation marking the western and southern boundaries which provide substantive screening to varying degrees from the adjacent private access road and fields beyond. The M27 motorway also borders the site to its eastern side with the land not being notably visibly apparent from this viewpoint or longer distance views beyond due to the physical and visual barrier that the motorway provides, the difference in ground levels, and the intervening boundary vegetation.

43. The principal public view of the site is therefore from Windmill Lane which lies to the north. From this vista, the existing authorised mobile homes and associated ancillary structures and development are already visibly apparent and indeed to a notable degree would serve to screen the additional pitches and the development upon them from public view. The

74 additional fencing to the southern and eastern boundaries would also not be seen from this public viewpoint and would be screened or visibly softened from views looking north or westwards towards the site by the intervening boundary vegetation.

44. Whilst the additional resulting urbanisation of the site itself therefore is acknowledged, it is not considered that this would unacceptably undermine the character of the area or the surrounding countryside such as to be unduly harmful in this respect in planning terms. Similarly, the aforementioned barrier of the M27 motorway limits any potential visibility from the settlement (Hedge End) to its opposing side and accordingly the development would not therefore undermine the functionality of the local gap in this location.

45. The application is considered to comply with the requirements of Saved Policies 1.CO, 3.CO, 59.BE and 87.H of the adopted Local Plan which collectively require that development does not unacceptably impact upon the character of the area or the functionality of the local gap and is appropriate in its design, siting and layout.

Highway matters

46. Saved Policy 87.H of the adopted Local Plan requires that gypsy and traveller sites should be within a reasonable distance of schools, medical services, shops and other facilities, and that appropriate provision for access and parking is made. These requirements are essentially reiterated within saved policies 100.T, 101.T and 104.T, which additionally require that development does not have an unacceptable impact upon the highway network.

47. In terms of its location, whilst falling within designated countryside, the site is not considered to be unduly detached from local services and facilities such that it is deemed to be unacceptably unsustainable for its proposed purpose. The site is also in already in use as a gypsy site which incorporates a degree of residential occupation, albeit this would be intensified by the proposals. In respect of parking, the proposals provide for 2no. vehicular parking spaces per mobile home within the curtilage of the site with adequate turning space available internally to allow vehicles to access and egress the development in a forward gear. The layout and parking provision is considered to be acceptable in this regard, with the latter conforming to the standards set out within the Council’s adopted Residential Parking Standards SPD. In terms of access this would remain unchanged, with the current entrance points from Windmill Lane being utilised for the proposed pitches. In addition, there is sufficient space available for refuse bins to be located in unobstructive positions to allow for their collection.

48. Whilst the comments of the neighbouring residents are noted in regards to traffic generation, it is not considered that the additional 6 pitches proposed (one of which is already present on site, albeit unauthorised)

75 would generate such a level of traffic as to be unacceptable in highway terms or for the residual cumulative impacts on the road network to be severe as set out within the guidance contained within paragraph 109 of the NPPF, and no objection has been raised by the Highway Authority in this regard.

49. There is, for the reasons given, considered to be no conflict with the requirements of Saved Policies 87.H, 100.T, 101.T or 104.T of the adopted Local Plan.

Amenity

50. In this respect there are two main considerations, these being the impact of the proposals upon the amenity of existing neighbouring residents, as well as the appropriateness of the level of amenity that would be afforded to the future occupiers of the proposed pitches. In regards to the latter first of all, the layout has been designed in accordance with the provisions of the document “Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites – A Good Practice”. Whilst this document has been withdrawn, it remains the most recent government guidance on how sites should be laid out and the facilities and provisions that should be made for their occupiers.

51. This document states that “gypsy and traveller sites are designed to provide land per household which is suitable for a mobile home, touring caravan and a utility building, together with space for parking” (paragraph 4.4). This paragraph goes on to say that “sites of various sizes, layouts and pitch numbers operate successfully today and work best when they take account of the size of the site and the needs and demographics of the families resident on them”. The document also sets out requirements in respect of the needs to demarcate pitch boundaries, separation distances between mobile homes, and the facilities which should be ideally incorporated within amenity buildings. The proposals conform to these requirements and thereby provide an adequate layout for its future residents in this regard.

52. The site is located immediately alongside the M27 motorway which runs parallel to its eastern boundary and which presents an amenity constraint in respect of both noise and air quality. The application is therefore supported by a noise and air quality assessment. In respect of the latter, the submitted report concludes that air quality is not considered a constraint to planning consent for the proposed development, subject to the inclusion of relevant mitigation measures. These mitigation measures incorporate the installation of mechanical ventilation for the rear habitable rooms at Unit 6, which as noted below is in closest proximity to the M27, due to NO2 levels exceeding the AQOs (air quality objectives set out within the government’s air quality strategy) within this part of the site.

53. In regards to the matter of noise, the site lies on a ground level approximately 1m lower than the motorway, with the closest of the proposed mobile homes (Unit 6) being situated at a distance of

76 approximately 15m from the edge of the motorway slip-road nearest to it. The nearest facades of the other mobile homes vary in proximity from between 24 and 56m away from the M27.

54. The assessment considers the existing noise levels and predicts those which would occur at each of the nearest elevations of the proposed mobile homes and, as a result of the levels recorded, recommends the installation of a continuous acoustic barrier fence along the north-eastern and south-eastern boundaries of the site. Whilst, with the fence in place, most of the units would fall within recommended parameters, noise levels within the mobile homes would still in some instances marginally exceed these levels, principally this is in respect of Unit 6 which lies closest to the motorway. Whilst this is not ideal from an amenity perspective in general terms, it is necessary in this respect to have regard to all material considerations relevant to the proposals.

55. Notably, the majority (4 of the 6) of the intended occupants of the proposed mobile homes, including the prospective occupier of Unit 6, already reside on site and are thereby familiar with the levels of noise presently experienced. The other occupants, being family members and frequent visitors to the existing site as set out the submitted supporting statement are, albeit perhaps to a lesser extent, also familiar with the present conditions. This is an important consideration and, indeed, one which formed part of the assessment of the Planning Inspector in allowing the appeal for the retention of 2 of the current 3 existing pitches on the land in 2004, with him noting that the appellant had occupied the land for some time and was prepared to accept the noise levels associated with doing so. It was also noted by the Inspector that there are other houses nearby which are subjected to similar levels of disturbance and that the presence of gypsy and traveller sites adjacent to motorways was not in itself a unique situation.

56. Taking account of these factors, it is considered that a sufficient level of amenity would be afforded to the future occupiers of the proposed pitches. Conditions are recommended to require that the acoustic fence be installed prior to the pitches being occupied and that the recommended mechanical ventilation be installed within unit 6 prior to this being brought into use.

57. In respect of the matter of the impact of the proposals upon the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring residents, there are no significant concerns. The properties immediately opposite the site are separated from the proposed pitches by the existing plots 1 to 3 to the front of the site and, whilst the property ‘Woodleigh’ lies closer to the site to its western side, the lower ground level of the site, as well as the intervening buffer of mature vegetation and the access track which runs up to the land to the rear, would serve to mitigate any impacts upon the amenity of its occupiers to a degree which is considered to be acceptable in planning terms. Conditions will, however, be imposed in the interests of amenity, to restrict construction hours and prevent on-site burning, as well as to

77 prevent business activities being undertaken on the site commensurate with the condition pertaining to the approvals for the existing authorised pitches.

58. The application is considered to comply with the requirements of Saved Policies 30.ES, 32.ES and 59.BE in respect of the matter of amenity.

Trees and ecology

59. The application is supported by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA), Tree Survey and Method Statement, which have been updated during the course of the application, as well as a Phase I Ecological Assessment. In regards to the matter of trees, Saved Policy 59.BE (i) of the adopted Local Plan requires that development is acceptable in a number of respects including its layout and siting, both in itself as well as in relation to natural features and trees worthy of retention. The site is not currently subject to any Tree Preservation Orders, nor does it fall within a designated conservation area. Notwithstanding this, the site’s perimeters contain a number of mature trees which make a positive contribution to the amenity of the area, provide habitat potential for ecology, as well as important screening for the site from its surroundings.

60. The submitted AIA sets out that the mature tree belts along the site’s perimeters are to be substantively retained, with only three individual trees (one cherry tree and two ash trees) proposed to be removed along the site’s southern boundary with these being designated as either poor quality specimens or dead or dying. In addition, a crown reduction is proposed to an Oak Tree along the site’s western boundary which is n necessitated for safety reasons. In terms of the physical construction works, the proposed position of the concrete bases on which the mobile homes that are to be sited within the parameters of what are currently plots 2 and 3 will not affect the root protection areas (RPAs) of any trees.

61. The position of the concrete pads in plot 1 (the western portion of the site) will however be bordering the RPAs of two mature Oak trees (T8 and T10) and therefore a specialist lower impact foundation design has been proposed, incorporating smaller concrete pads localised to meet the mobile home outriggers, to minimise any impact upon these trees. The Council’s Tree Officer has reviewed the submitted information and confirmed that he is satisfied with the works proposed and that the development will not unacceptably impact upon trees worthy of retention. Conditions are recommended in regards to tree protection and to require adherence to the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement.

62. In respect of the ecological impacts of the development, as noted above, the application is supported by an extended Phase I Ecological Assessment. This survey identified a mix of semi-natural and man-made habitats on/near the site deemed typical of this part of rural Hampshire. The site itself was identified as supporting habitats largely of low ecological value, including buildings/hardstandings, intensively managed

78 grassland, and a species-poor, ornamental hedge. The main habitats of value were the treelines located offsite and adjacent to the eastern and western boundaries which will be retained as part of the development. In addition, the existing amenity building in the south-western corner of the site was identified as having low potential for roosting bats; this building is to be retained as part of the proposals.

63. As well as the retention of the aforementioned features, the Ecological Survey makes further recommendations in respect of the retention of the boundary hedge along the southern boundary (which is proposed to be retained as part of the development), the incorporation of ecologically sensitive lighting, landscaping and wildlife boxes where possible. A sustainable drainage scheme incorporating storm cells and soakaways is also proposed as part of the development. Whilst there is considered to be limited potential for additional landscaping given the intensity of development on the site, conditions will be applied in relation to the matters of external lighting and the incorporating of wildlife boxes into the development. An additional condition, as recommended by the Council’s Ecologist, will be imposed requiring that vegetation clearance works be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season (which runs from March to August inclusive) unless supervised by a suitably qualified ecologist.

64. With the imposition of the aforementioned conditions, the application is considered to be acceptable in terms of its arboricultural and ecological impacts and there is therefore no conflict with Saved Policies 25.NC and 59.BE of the adopted Local Plan in these respects.

Planning Obligations/Considerations

65. None required.

Other Material Considerations

66. None.

Conclusion

67. In conclusion, whilst acknowledging that the proposals would represent a notable intensification of use on the site and a marked increase in the number of authorised pitches from 3 to 9, it is considered in this case there is a justifiable and demonstrable need for the additional provision proposed in this location. The proposals would also not unduly impact upon the character of the area, local gap or amenity, and are acceptable in terms of their highway, arboricultural and ecological impacts. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

79 80 81 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10

BURSLEDON, HAMBLE-LE-RICE AND HOUND LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Thursday, 24 January 2019

HOUND ROAD EXPERIMENTAL TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER

Report of the Senior Engineering Specialist

Recommendations

It is recommended that:

(1) The Hound Road Experimental Traffic Regulation Order be formalised and made permanent; and

(2) Consideration to be given to further measures to control the displaced parking.

Summary

This experimental traffic regulation order was put in place in Hound Road to deal with parking and obstruction issues. An experimental traffic regulation order must be made permanent within 18 months or removed. It appears that the issues that the Traffic Regulation Order was designed to address have been resolved although there are a number of additional issues that have arisen as a result.

Statutory Powers

* Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984; Traffic Management Act 2004.

Strategic Implications

1. This report relates to the Council’s objectives to tackle congestion, provide an excellent environment for all and enable improved Health and Wellbeing by promoting sustainable and healthy modes of transport. It also contributes to the Local First agenda as this is a very localised issue requiring a locally acceptable response.

Introduction

2. Following regular complaints regarding obstructive parking and concerns that emergency vehicles would not be able to access properties in Hound Road, Netley, an experimental traffic regulation order (TRO) was implemented to attempt to address the problem.

3. After 18 months an experimental TRO must be made permanent or removed.

83 Background

4. For a number of years there has been an issue with non-resident parking on Hound Road, Netley. Some residents have concerns that users of Royal Victoria Country Park (RVCP) utilise Hound Road for free parking. At busy times this can cause severe congestion and safety issues, as it reduces the available width of the road, especially over the railway bridge. There has also been evidence of inconsiderate parking across driveways, blocking access and reducing visibility.

5. At the Bursledon Hamble-le-Rice and Hound Local Area Committee (BHH) meeting of 26 June 2017, the committee decided to implement an experimental TRO, introducing double yellow lines DYLs down Hound Road from the Hound Close side of the railway bridge to the ‘hammerhead’ at the RVCP end. Breaks within the restrictions both sides of the carriageway and at crucial points would be provided to allow both parking and passing places. The plan in appendix 1 shows the location and layout. It came into force on 26 September 2017.

Public Feedback

6. There is no formal public consultation before an experimental TRO comes into effect, although, the first six months that it is in operation are effectively a consultation period during which objections can be made.

7. During the six month period, Four letters of comments were received which raised the following points:-

. Two people felt that the order has moved the problem further along the road and that the order should be extended. . One person suggested that better signage needs to be in place to make clear to drivers that there is no vehicular access to the park along this road, it is claimed that drivers with caravans have attempted to use this route only to find turning around is rather difficult. . One person asked if a 20mph could be considered as the reduction in parked cars has contributed to a rise in vehicle speed. . One person felt the experimental period (and therefore the period in which residents could comment) should be extended through the summer months to assess the full effect of the order (In the event this has happened). . Two people (visitors not residents) noted that due to the order they now had to park further along the road, and felt that the order should not be made permanent.

Eastleigh Borough Council 84 Financial Implications

8. The cost of the TRO and associated signs and road markings are funded through the Local Area Committee budget, a sum of £5000 was allocated for implementing this order. Any amendments or new proposals which require the Traffic Regulation Order to be re-advertised and further consultation to be carried out, will incur additional costs relating to staff time and advertisement expenses that were not included in the original estimate for the work. Due to time and budget limitations, such changes would be better addressed through inclusion in a future Consolidation TRO.

Risk Assessment

9. The risk is considered to be low as the experimental order has been in place for one year and any objections have been considered before the order is taken forward to be made permanent. It is noted, however that there is a critical timing element in that the order needs to be made permanent by March 2019 or it will become invalid and have to be removed completely. Equality and Diversity Implications

10. The Equality Act is not relevant to the decision in this report as the decision does not relate to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity, or fostering good relations between different people. The order has been in place in experimental form for a year in that time there have been no complaints or issues raised which indicate any people with protected characteristics have experienced any difficulties as a result of the restrictions imposed by the order. As a result an Equality Impact Assessment has not been carried out.

Conclusion

11. The Problem being experienced with Hound Road was one of obstruction both physical and of the forward visibility giving rise to concern over road safety, and accessibility for emergency vehicles. The use of an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order was approved by this committee and the result of the experiment has been positive in solving these issues. It has also introduced new issues for the Local Area Committee to consider.

DAVID PICKETT SENIOR ENGINEERING SPECIALIST

Date: 29 November 2018 Contact Officer: David Pickett Tel No: e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: None

Eastleigh Borough Council 85 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - SECTION 100D The following is a list of documents which disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report. This list does not include any published works or documents which would disclose exempt or confidential information.

Eastleigh Borough Council 86