Working in Partnership
EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL, PENNS PLACE, PETERSFIELD, HAMPSHIRE GU31 4EX
Telephone: 01730 266551 Website: www.easthants.gov.uk
PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA
Date: Thursday, 20 November 2014 Time: 6.00 pm Venue: Council Chamber, Penns Place, Petersfield, GU31 4EX
Membership: Councillor P Burridge (Chairman)
Councillors D Ashcroft, R Ayer, K Carter, D Evans, A Glass, C Graham (Vice- Chairman), M Harvey, D Newberry, D Phillips, S Schillemore, R Saunders, I Thomas and A Williams (Vice-Chairman)
(THE QUORUM FOR THIS MEETING IS 7 VOTING COUNCILLORS)
The business to be transacted is set out below:
Jo Barden-Hernandez Service Manager – Legal & Democratic Services
Date of Publication : Wednesday, 12 November 2014
Contact Officer: Lisa Papps 01730 234073 Email: [email protected]
i
Page Nos
1. Apologies for Absence
2. Confirmation of Minutes
Please note that it is helpful if Councillors could give advance notice, to Democratic Services, of any questions they wish to raise in respect of the Minutes.
Minutes of the meetings held on 9 October 2014 and 30 October 2014, circulated under separate cover.
3. Chairman's Announcements
4. Declarations of Interest
Councillors are reminded of their responsibility to declare any disclosable pecuniary interest which they may have in any item of business on the agenda no later than when that item is reached. Unless dispensation has been granted, you may not participate in any discussion of, or vote on, or discharge any function related to any matter in which you have a pecuniary interest as defined by regulations made by the Secretary of State under the Localism Act 2011. You must withdraw from the room or chamber when the meeting discusses and votes on the matter.
Matters for Decision
5. Acceptance of Supplementary Matters
6. Future Items 9 - 10
7. Report of the Service Manager Planning Development
PART 1 - East Hampshire District Council Items
Section I
(i) 30667/015/OUT/JM - Alton Sports & Social Club, Anstey Road, 11 - 46 Alton, GU34 2RL Molson Coors Brewing Co (UK) Ltd
Outline - Demolition of existing buildings and structures and erection of up to 85 dwellings with associated car parking, landscaping and formation of new vehicular access (as amended by further information received 07/07/2014). ii
(ii) 50463/FUL/NU - Land West of Linden, Fullers Road, Rowledge, 47 - 72 Farnham Bewley Homes Plc
Erection of 17 dwellings on land at corner of Fullers Road, Rowledge and A325 (Additional/Amended information received 03/10/2014).
(iii) 38108/008/FUL/NP - Land West of Wood End, Fullers Road, 73 - 100 Rowledge, Farnham, GU10 4DF Nigel Rose Architects
7 new dwellings including new access, carport and parking. (Amended drawing received 21/10/2014).
(iv) 30661/025/FUL/MW - Mays Coppice Farm, Whichers Gate Road, 101 - 110 Rowlands Castle, PO9 5NE Mr Family
New agricultural access from Whichers Gate Road to Mays Coppice Farm.
(v) 30465/014/TPO/SG - Wood North of, Headley Hill Road, Headley 111 - 114 Down, Bordon Cllr A Williams
One Oak tree - in order to ensure that the tree remains in a safe condition - prune back the damaged limb to the first suitable growing point behind the tear, and crown reduce by no more than 2 metres, using tip reduction techniques, to leave a finished crown spread of 7 metres and a finished height of 16 metres.
Section II
There are no Section 2 items within this agenda.
PART 2 - South Downs National Park Items
Section I
(i) SDNP/14/04838/HOUS - Merriegarth, Magpie Road, Rowlands 115 - 128 Castle, Hampshire, PO8 0AS Single storey rear and side extension. Loft conversion to create additional bedroom and ensuite (as amended by plan received 04/11/2014).
iii
Section II
(i) 35364/002 - Land to the North of, Ramshill, Petersfield, GU31 4AT 129 - 132 276 Dwellings with associated works including garages, parking, access and demolition of 44 & 46 Ramshill.
iv
v
Page Nos GENERAL INFORMATION
IF YOU WOULD LIKE A VERSION OF THIS AGENDA, OR ANY OF ITS REPORTS, IN LARGE PRINT, BRAILLE, AUDIO OR IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE PLEASE CONTACT DEMOCRATIC SERVICES ON 01730 234073.
Internet
This agenda and its accompanying reports can also be found on the East Hampshire District Council website: www.easthants.gov.uk
Public Attendance and Participation
Members of the public are welcome to attend and observe the meetings. Many of the Council’s meetings allow the public to make deputations on matters included in the agenda. Rules govern this procedure and for further information please get in touch with the contact officer for this agenda.
Disabled Access
All meeting venues have full access and facilities for the disabled.
Emergency Procedure
Please ensure that you are familiar with the location of all emergency exits which are clearly marked. In the unlikely event of an emergency an alarm will sound.
PLEASE EVACUATE THE BUILDING IMMEDIATELY.
DO NOT RE-ENTER THE BUILDING UNTIL AUTHORISED TO DO SO.
No Smoking Policy
All meeting venues operate a no smoking policy on all premises and grounds
vii This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Annex
PLANNING COMMITTEE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. This report considers planning applications submitted to the Council, as the Local Planning Authority, for determination. It may also include items which are being determined by the Council on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority.
East Hampshire District Council is acting as an agent for the South Downs National Park Authority in accordance with an agreement signed under Section 101 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Under this arrangement the Council can determine planning applications on sites within the South Downs National Park area of the district on behalf of the National Park Authority. Applications for the South Downs National Park are prefixed with the letters SDNP.
2.1. SECTIONS IN THE REPORT
The report is divided into two main parts;
Part 1 – East Hampshire District Council
This part of the report considers applications and related planning matters which are being determined or considered by the Council as the Local Planning Authority.
Part 2 – South Downs National Park Authority
This part of the report considers applications and related planning matters which fall within East Hampshire District’s area of the South Downs National Park and which the Council is determining or considering on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority.
Each part of the report is split into two sections:
Section 1 - Schedule of Application Recommendations
This Section deals with planning applications that have been received by the Council and which require the Planning Committee to make a decision to grant or refuse permission. Each item contains a full description of the proposed development, details of the consultations undertaken and summary of the responses received, an assessment of the proposal against current policy, a commentary and concludes with a recommendation. A presentation with slides will be made to Committee. Public participation is allowed on Section 1 items.
Section 2 – Other matters
This Section deals with other planning matters which are not the subject of a current application. No formal presentation will be made to Committee, unless required, and there will be no public participation.
2.2. All information, advice, and recommendations contained in this report are understood to
Page 1 be correct at the time of publication, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints, some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date for consultee responses or neighbour comment. Where a recommendation is either altered or substantially amended between preparing the report and the Committee meeting or where additional information has been received, a separate Supplementary Matters paper will be circulated at the meeting to assist Councillors. This paper will be available to members of the public.
3. PLANNING POLICY
3.1. All planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) of the Town and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). If the development plan contains material policies or proposals and there are no other material considerations, the application should be determined in accordance with the development plan. Where there are other material considerations, the development plan will be the starting point, and other material considerations will also be taken into account. One such consideration will be whether the plan policies are relevant and up to date. The relevant development plans are the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan, The East Hampshire District Joint Core Strategy 2014 and the saved policies in the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review 2006.
3.2. Although not necessarily specifically referred to in the Committee report, the relevant development plan will have been used as a background document and the relevant policies taken into account in the preparation of the report on each item.
3.3. The East Hampshire District Joint Core Strategy and Local Plan have policies that contain criteria that must be met if a particular form of development is to be allowed. Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states: “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”
3.4. The Council may sometimes decide to grant planning permission for development that departs from a development plan if other material considerations indicate that it should proceed. One of these material considerations is whether the plan is up-to-date in terms of housing delivery.
4. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.1. Material considerations must be genuine planning considerations, i.e. they must be related to the development and use of land in the public interest. They must also fairly and reasonably relate to the application concerned. The Courts are the arbiters of what constitutes a material consideration. All the fundamental factors involved in land-use planning are included, such as the number, size, layout, siting, design, and external appearance of buildings and the proposed means of access, together with landscaping, impact on the neighbourhood, and the availability of infrastructure.
Page 2 4.2. Matters that should not be taken into account are: • loss of property value • loss of view • land and boundary disputes • matters covered by leases or covenants • the impact of construction work • property maintenance issues • need for development (save in • the identity or personal characteristics of certain defined circumstances) the applicant • competition between firms, • or matters that are dealt with by other legislation, such as the Building Regulations (e.g. structural safety, fire risks, means of escape in the event of fire etc). - The fact that a development may conflict with other legislation is not a reason to refuse planning permission or defer a decision. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure compliance with all relevant legislation. 4.3. Government statements of planning policy are material considerations that must be taken into account in deciding planning applications. These statements cannot make irrelevant any matter that is a material consideration in a particular case. Nevertheless, where such statements indicate the weight that should be given to relevant considerations, decision-makers must have proper regard to them.
4.4. In those cases where the development plan is not relevant, for example because there are no relevant policies, the planning application should be determined on its merits in the light of all the material considerations.
5. PLANNING CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS
5.1. The Council can impose conditions on planning permissions only where there is a clear land-use planning justification for doing so. Conditions should be used in a way that is clearly seen to be fair, reasonable, and practicable. One key test of whether a particular condition is necessary is if planning permission would have to be refused if the condition were not imposed. Otherwise, such a condition would need special and precise justification.
5.2. Where it is not possible to include matters that are necessary for a development to proceed in a planning condition the Council can agree a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Planning obligations should meet the Secretary of State's policy tests. They should be: • necessary; • relevant to planning; • directly related to the proposed development; • fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and • reasonable in all other respects.
5.3. The use of planning obligations is governed by the fundamental principle that planning permission may not be bought or sold. It is therefore not legitimate for unacceptable development to be permitted because of benefits or inducements offered by a developer, which are not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning
Page 3 terms. Planning obligations are only a material consideration to be taken into account when deciding whether to grant planning permission, and it is for the Council to decide what weight should be attached to a particular material consideration.
6. PLANNING APPEALS Applicants have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State if an application is refused, or granted subject to conditions, or if it has not been determined within the specified period. Appeals are administered by the Planning Inspectorate - an executive agency reporting to the Secretary of State. Appeals are considered by written representation, hearings, and public inquiries. In planning appeals, it is normally expected that both parties will pay their own costs. Costs can however, be awarded against the Council where it:
(a) fails to determine a planning application in good time – the Council must have good planning reasons to explain and justify why it did not make a decision in time. (b) fails to carry out adequate prior investigation consistent with national policy and guidance. (c) prevents or delays development that should clearly be permitted having regard to the development plan, national policy statements and any other material considerations. It is the Councils responsibility to produce evidence to show clearly, why the development cannot be permitted. Reasons for refusal must be • complete, • precise, • specific • relevant to the application, and • supported by substantiated evidence. (d) fails to show reasonable planning grounds for taking a decision contrary to officer advice (e) gives too much weight to neighbour objections - the extent of local opposition is not, in itself, a reasonable ground for resisting development. To carry significant weight, opposition should be founded on valid planning reasons that is supported by substantial evidence. (f) relies on unsubstantiated objections where they include valid reasons for refusal but rely almost exclusively on local opposition from third parties, through representations and attendance at an inquiry or hearing, to support the decision. (g) fails to show that it has considered the possibility of imposing relevant planning conditions to allow development to proceed.
The following are examples given in Planning Practice Guidance of circumstances that may lead to an award of costs against the Council: (a) ignoring relevant national policy – for example, the advice in NPPF, (b) where a proposal is contrary to the development plan but the relevant policy has been superseded by national policy which advocates an entirely different approach. An example might be ignoring national advice in paragraph 54 of NPPF which may allow some market housing to bring forward a rural affordable housing exception site, (c) acting contrary to, or not following, well-established case law, (d) persisting in objections to a scheme, or part of a scheme, which has already been granted planning permission or which the Secretary of State or an Inspector has previously indicated to be acceptable,
Page 4 (e) not determining like cases in a like manner – for example, imposing an additional reason for refusal on a similar scheme to one previously considered by the planning authority where circumstances have not materially changed, (f) failing to grant a further planning permission for a scheme the subject of an extant or recently expired permission where there has been no material change in circumstances, (g) refusing to approve reserved matters when the objections relate to issues that should already have been considered at the outline stage, (h) imposing a condition that is not necessary, precise, enforceable, relevant to planning, relevant to the development permitted or reasonable and thereby does not comply with the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance on the use of conditions in planning permissions, (i) requiring the appellant to enter into or complete a planning obligation which does not accord with the tests in para 204 of the NPPF, or (j) not imposing conditions on a grant of planning permission where conditions could effectively have overcome the objection identified – for example, in relation to highway matters.
7. THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S ROLE
7.1 The Secretary of State has reserve powers to direct the council to refer an application to him/her for decision. This is what is meant by a 'called-in' application. In general, this power of intervention is used selectively and the Secretary of State will not interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. The Planning Practice Guidance sets out the type of development proposals that directs local authorities to consult with the Secretary of State before granting planning permission.
8. PROPRIETY
8.1 Councillors are elected to represent the interests of the whole community in planning matters and not simply their individual Wards. When determining planning applications they must take into account planning considerations only. This can include views expressed on relevant planning matters. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless it is founded upon valid planning reasons.
9. PRIVATE INTERESTS
9.1 The planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another, although private interests may coincide with the public interest in some cases. It can be difficult to distinguish between public and private interests, but this may be necessary on occasion. The basic question is not whether owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities and the existing use of land and buildings that ought to be protected in the public interest. Covenants or the maintenance/protection of private property are therefore not material planning consideration.
Page 5 10. OTHER LEGISLATION
10.1 Non-planning legislation may place statutory requirements on planning authorities, or may set out controls that need to be taken into account (for example, environmental legislation, or water resources legislation). The Council, in exercising its functions, also must have regard to the general requirements of other legislation, in particular: • The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which prevents discrimination directly or indirectly in any functions, carried out by public authorities. • The Equality Act 2010, which places a duty on all those responsible for providing a service to the public not to discriminate against disabled people by providing a lower standard of service. • The Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. The general purpose of the ECHR is to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to maintain and promote the ideals and values of a democratic society. It sets out the basic rights of every person together with the limitations placed on these rights in order to protect the rights of others and of the wider community. The specific Articles of the ECHR relevant to planning include Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property). All planning applications are assessed to make sure that the subsequent determination of the development proposal is compatible with the Act. If there is a potential conflict, this will be highlighted in the report on the relevant item.
11. PUBLIC SPEAKING
11.1 The Council has adopted a scheme for the public to speak on all Section 1 items. Where public speaking is allowed, the applicant or their representative , the local Parish/Town Council, and one objector may address the Committee, for a maximum of three minutes each, by prior invitation. Members of the public wishing to speak must have contacted the Meeting Administrator in Democratic Services at least 48 hours before the meeting. It is not possible to arrange to speak to the Committee at the Committee meeting itself.
11.2 For probity reasons associated with advance disclosure of information under the Access to Information Act, neither the applicant, Parish Council, nor an objector will be allowed to circulate, show or display further material at, or just before, the Committee meeting.
12. INSPECTION OF DRAWINGS
12.1 All drawings are available for inspection on the internet at www.easthants.gov.uk and at the Planning Development Reception area during our normal office hours. The files and drawings will also be available 30 minutes prior to the start of meeting for Councillors to inspect.
Page 6 13. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
13.1 There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. However, in the event of an appeal, further resources will be put towards defending the Council’s decision. Rarely and in certain circumstances, decisions on planning applications may result in the Council facing an application for costs arising from a planning appeal. Officers will aim to alert Members where this may be likely and provide appropriate advice in such circumstances.
Chris Murray Service Manager Planning Development
Background Papers:
• the individual planning application file (reference quoted in each case) • the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan 2013 • East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy 2014 • East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review 2006 - Saved Policies • Government advice and guidance contained in circulars, National Planning Policy Framework, Planning Practice Guidance and ministerial statements • any other document specifically referred to in the report.
Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 8
PLANNING COMMITTEE
PS.439/2014 20 November 2014
POSSIBLE FUTURE ITEMS FOR COMMITTEE / SITE VISIT
The following items are for INFORMATION purposes only. They comprise major applications that have either been submitted some time ago but are still not yet ready for consideration or are recently received applications that are not ready to be considered by the Committee or determined under the Scheme of Delegation. The purpose of this report is to highlight the receipt of these applications to ensure that any issues that they raise are highlighted at an early stage. Councillors may also suggest possible future site visits under this item.
Reference Description and Address 1 55562/001 Outline planning application with all matters reserved (except for access to the highway network and associated off-site highway improvements) for the demolition of existing buildings and the development of a maximum of 700 dwellings, approximately 1.7 Ha of employment land, a Local Centre (including local retail, a primary school and community facilities), a Care Village (including staff accommodation), playing pitches, a cricket pavilion (including associated access and parking), allotments (including associated building and car parking), acoustic bunds and ecological buffers together with internal access network (including footpaths and cycleways), drainage works, associated landscaping and open space (including play areas).
Development Land East of Horndean, Rowlands Castle Road, Horndean, Waterlooville
This application has only just recently been submitted and consultations and notifications are under way. It is too early to make any decision as to how this application will be determined.
2 55268 Development of 34 residential dwellings including improvements to access road.
Land East of, College Close, Rowlands Castle
This application has only just recently been submitted and consultations and notifications are under way. It is too early to make any decision as to how this application will be determined.
Page 9 3 33993/075 60 bed nursing home with access, car parking and landscaping.
Former OSU site Area B, Midhurst Road, Liphook
This application has only just recently been submitted and consultations and notifications are under way. It is too early to make any decision as to how this application will be determined.
4 33993/076 Reserved matters for commercial warehouse B1 (C) unit with a 91 sq. m ground floor area and 44 sq. m mezzanine (totalling 135 sq. m). The reserved matters relate to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.
Former OSU site Area B, Midhurst Road, Liphook.
This application has only just recently been submitted and consultations and notifications are under way. It is too early to make any decision as to how this application will be determined.
SDNP/14/05011/FUL Change of Use of part of agricultural field to campsite and erection of toilet and shower block.
Lower Farm, Clanfield Road, East Meon .
This application has only just recently been submitted and consultations and notifications are under way. It is too early to make any decision as to how this application will be determined.
Page 10 Page 11
PART 1
EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT OF THE SERVICE MANAGER PLANNING DEVELOPMENT
Applications to be determined by the Council as the Local Planning Authority
PS.439/2014 20 November 2014
SECTION 1 – SCHEDULE OF APPLICATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Item No.: 1 The information, recommendations, and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.
PROPOSAL OUTLINE - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AND ERECTION OF UP TO 85 DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS (AS AMENDED BY FURTHER INFORMATION RECEIVED 07/07/2014) LOCATION: Alton Sports & Social Club, Anstey Road, Alton, GU34 2RL REFERENCE : 30667/015 PARISH: Alton APPLICANT: Molson Coors Brewing Co (UK) Ltd CONSULTATION EXPIRY : 30 July 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY : 12 May 2014 COUNCILLOR: Cllr D Phillips SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: OUTLINE PERMISSION
Page 12 This application is included on the agenda at the discretion of the Service Manager Planning Development
Site and Development
Site
The site is a rectangular area of land of approximately 2.27ha on the south-eastern side of Anstey Road, within the Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) of Alton. The site slopes down slightly from north-west to south-east, with the railway line, on a low embankment, forming the south-eastern boundary. The site is accessed in the north-eastern corner from Anstey Road, close to the junction of Anstey lane with Anstey Road.
The site comprises a clubhouse in the north-eastern part, with parking area. The north- western part has tennis courts, which are in a poor state of repair. There is a bowls pitch between the tennis courts and the club house, with a spectator stand facing the football pitch on its southern side. The majority of the site is laid out to two football pitches.
The site is bounded by a 2 m high fence to Anstey Road (north-west) with a mixture of fencing and hedging along the north-eastern boundary with properties in Anstey Road and Anstey Mill Close. The boundary with the John Eggars Square and Eggars close is a mixture of 2 m high fencing and higher netting to prevent balls going over the boundary, with a pair of trees adjacent to the Close. The boundary with the railway line has a row of very mature leylandii conifers with a security fence.
There is a timber pavilion building in the south-western corner of the site.
Surrounding area
To the west is the converted buildings and new dwellings within the grounds of the former Eggars School – John Eggars Square and Eggars Close. The former school building is Grade II listed. To the east are residential properties in Anstey Mill Close and Anstey Road. 69-79 Anstey Road, which face the site and onto Anstey Road, are Grade II listed and are within the Anstey Conservation Area. The large lime tree in the north-eastern corner of the site is protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).
The railway is the main Alton to Waterloo line and stands on an embankment about 1 m above the level of the site, with an industrial estate in Newman Lane beyond, at a significantly lower level. A Roman road runs through the site on its southern part.
Opposite the site are residential properties in Shipley Close and the single storey Cedar Veterinary building, fronting Anstey Lane.
Page 13 Proposal
This is an outline application with only access as a detailed consideration. However, an illustrative layout plan has been submitted with the application. The proposal is for 85 dwellings, of which 35% would be affordable units. The 30 affordable homes would be 70% affordable rent and 30% shared equity/ownership.
The proposal is based on an indicative housing mix of:
18 x four bedroomed houses 30 x three bedroomed houses 18 x two bedroomed houses 12 x two bedroomed flats and 7 x one bedroomed flats.
The access would be moved to an off-centre position along the site frontage, to provide greater distance between the access point and the Anstey Lane junction with Anstey Road. The scheme does not include any turning lanes on Anstey Road and would be a simple priority ‘T’ style junction. A pedestrian route into the site is shown in the north-western corner.
Parking would be provided to adopted standards, with 181 spaces across the site, mainly shown as being on-plot.
During the course of the application, the layout has been amended to provide a scheme that is more appropriate to Anstey Road and the adjacent Conservation Area, being more linear in design that curved, with railings and wall along the site frontage to replace the fence. Additional planting has been provided adjacent to properties in Anstey Mill Close and the railway embankment. Greater space has been afforded to the lime tree.
A Stage 1 safety audit has also been submitted, together with some technical changes to the access point.
The affordable housing sizes and tenure has been revised in accordance with the requirements of the Housing Officer.
The proposal included the following studies:
Planning Statement Design and Access Statement Flood Risk Assessment Contaminated Land Assessment Historic Environment Assessment Tree Survey Report Arboricultural Development Plan Ecological Appraisal Bat Survey Report
Page 14 Air Quality Assessment Noise and Vibration Assessment Transport Assessment Stage 1 Safety Audit Statement of Community Involvement
Relevant Planning History
30667/009 Outline - residential development. Withdrawn 19/12/2006. 30667/010 Outline - 150 residential units with associated car parking, open space, landscaping and access. Refused 11/12/2007. 30667/011 Outline - 150 residential units with associated car parking, landscaping and access. Withdrawn 21/10/2008. 30667/012 Request for EIA screening opinion - supermarket, parking, loading area, associated landscaping and access. EIA not required 30/07/2009. 30667/013 Outline - new supermarket with a gross floor area up to 4100sqm. Refused 06/05/2010. 30667/014 Request for EIA screening opinion - Residential development of approximately 120 dwellings , parking, open space landscaping and associated access (2.27 hectares). EIA not required 08/10/2013.
Related applications to current proposal
52457/002 Installation of artificial turf pitch, flood lighting, upgrade of ancillary facilities including refurbishment of main spectator stand and changing rooms at Alton Football Ground, Anstey Lane, Alton – Not yet determined
21068/038 New bowls club facility including club house, bowling green, landscaping, new access and associated parking at Chawton Park Road, Alton – Not yet determined
Development Plan Policies and Proposals
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014)
CP1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development CP2 - Spatial Strategy CP10 - Spatial strategy for housing CP11 - Housing tenure, type and mix CP13 - Affordable housing on residential development sites CP16 - Protection and provision of social infrastructure CP18 - Provision of open space, sport and recreation and built facilities CP20 - Landscape CP21 - Biodiversity CP24 - Sustainable construction CP25 - Flood Risk CP26 - Water resources/ water quality
Page 15 CP27 - Pollution CP28 - Green Infrastructure CP29 - Design CP30 - Historic Environment CP31 - Transport CP32 - Infrastructure
East Hampshire District local Plan: Second Review (2006) (Saved Policies)
T3 - Pedestrians and Cyclists T4 - Protection of Public Footpaths HE17 - Archaeological & Ancient Monuments P7 - Contaminated Land
Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The NPPF was published in March 2012 and came into force with immediate effect. At the heart of it is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It states that the development plan is the starting point for consideration of planning applications, and planning applications must be determined in accordance with it, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Anstey, Alton Conservation Area Conservation areas are designated areas of special architectural interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. It is the quality and interest of the area rather than individual buildings which is important. The consequence of conservation area designation is not to preserve conservation areas unchanged but requires that new development is designed in a sensitive manner which has regard to the special character of the area. The Council’s policy on allowing development within conservation areas is set out in Policy HE4 of the East Hampshire Local Plan: Second Review, where development will be permitted only where it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area.
Town Design Statement - Alton Town Design Statement - non statutory planning guidance that has been the subject of public consultation and therefore is a material planning consideration.
Alton 2020 Town Plan 2005
Alton Neighbourhood Plan – Designation Order
Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments
County Ecologist - In summary, I consider that the ecological information submitted is sufficient and that no further ecological surveys works are required at this stage.
Page 16 The application is now accompanied by an updated Ecological Appraisal (Aluco Ecology, July 2014) which now includes results of Phase 2 bat emergence surveys on the two buildings scheduled for demolition, as well as Phase 2 reptile surveys. The bat surveys did not identify any bat roosts and there are no constraints to the demolition of these buildings. A moderately- sized population of slow-worms (c.30 individuals) has been recorded within suitable habitat at the site margins.
Outline mitigation measures, primarily for reptiles and foraging/commuting bats, have been provided and I am content that these are appropriate and proportionate to the level of ecological impact. These measures are still for the large part presented as recommendations rather than firm commitments and so I would expect to see fuller details, linked explicitly to the site layout and landscaping plans, submitted with any future reserved matters application.
Therefore, if you are minded to grant permission, could I recommend that a scheme of ecological mitigation and enhancement is secured via a suitably-worded planning condition.
County Archaeologist - As described in the Archaeological Desk Based Assessment. The site of proposed development has some unexplored archaeological potential, in particular for prehistoric and Roman archaeology. The scale of the proposed development means that if any previously unidentified archaeological deposits are present on the site they will be disturbed by groundworks. While this does not present an overriding concern I would advise that the assessment and recording of any archaeological deposits present be secured through the attachment of a suitable archaeological conditions.
Sport England - I write further to Sport England’s letter dated 20 February 2014 and later response on 3 October 2014. As you will recall Sport England objected to this application as the proposed development results in the loss of grass playing field, not all of which is being reprovided. Sport England sought to withdraw this objection in its letter dated 3 October subject to specified mechanisms within the s106 agreement that secured the relevant re provision. However, following ongoing discussions, Sport England and the local planning authority were unable to reach agreement on the precise wording of the s106 agreement and the application was subsequently withdrawn from Committee.
Sport England has now reached an agreed position with the relevant parties such that it can confirm its current position to be one of no objection strictly subject to the successful completion of s106 and/or planning conditions linked to the other two applications (ref 21068/038 and 52457/002) which achieve the following:
That no development shall commence until the development associated with application refs 21068/038 and 52457/002 are built and made fully operational That an index linked financial contribution of £150,000 is made payable to East Hampshire District Council The contribution be spent on the provision of reinstated/ new pitches at Anstey Park and ancillary provision associated with those reinstated/ new pitches; or other new playing field provision to be agreed in consultation with Sport England That the commented sum be spent within a 5 year period.
Page 17 Sport England’s assessment of the application and the rationale for reaching this position was set out in its letter dated 3 October as follows:
Sport England is aware that a separate planning application (LPA ref 21068/038) has been submitted for a replacement bowls facility at Chawton Park Road, and Sport England has raised no objection to that application. Sport England is therefore satisfied that the bowls facility that will be lost at this site will be replaced.
The site also includes tennis courts. However we note in the Planning Statement that the tennis club that once used the courts relocated to a new purpose built facility at Chawton Park Road. We also note that this is evidence on the Tennis Club’s own website. Sport England is therefore satisfied that the tennis courts have already been re-provided.
The site contains two football pitches amounting to approximately 1.6 hectares of playing field. These pitches are used by Alton Town Football Club where it is proposed to move the club to Anstey Lane Football Ground, who will ground share with another club. This is subject to a planning application for an artificial grass pitch and ground improvements (LPA ref 52457/002) which Sport England has not objected to.
Recognising the sporting benefits that may arise as a result of the development, Sport England has continued work with the applicant to try and establish a ‘way forward’ such that Sport England may consider the withdrawal of its outstanding objection.
The applicant has explored a number of options for providing a replacement grass pitch including those favoured by Sport England which were the provision of an additional pitch at Antsy Park or the Town Council land to the south of the proposed new artificial grass pitch at Anstey Lane.
Whilst it remains Sport England’s view that an additional training pitch is required to meet the needs of Alton United, and it is also Sport England’s view that a number of options for replacement site do exist, although the applicant has exhausted the delivery of these options within the life of this application. It is felt that a solution could be forthcoming and that the Council may be better positioned to deliver a solution in partnership with perhaps the Town Council, depending on the site. Sport England is therefore satisfied that, in this particular case, a financial contribution (of £150,000) payable to the Council is considered an acceptable solution.
Sport England is therefore satisfied that a policy compliant position could be reached.
Sport England acknowledges that the proposed development, does not accord with the strictest interpretation of its E4 policy exception as follows:
E4 The playing field or playing fields that would be lost as a result of the proposed development would be replaced by a playing field or playing fields of an equivalent or better quality and of equivalent or greater quantity, in a suitable location and subject to equivalent or better management arrangements, prior to the commencement of development.
Page 18
However, Sport England has weighed up the benefits arising from the overall scheme, which includes this application, plus application ref 21068/038 (for a replacement bowls facility) and application ref 52457/002 (for the clubhouse and AGP at Anstey Lane Football Ground); and concluded that the overall package of benefits outweighs the loss of playing field. This view is supported by the FA and Alton Town FC. In addition, Sport England is confident that the Council will be able to use the financial contribution to deliver a replacement pitch in the short to medium term.
Housing Officer - The applicant has revised the affordable housing scheme in line with comments made in my consultation response of 19th March 2014.
The applicant has adjusted the affordable mix to comprise 6 No. one bedroom flats, 6 No. 2 bedroom flats, 11 No. two bedroom houses, 5 No. three bedroom houses and 2 No. four bedroom houses. The applicant proposes a tenure split of 70% affordable rent to 30% intermediate.
Both these revisions to the application are acceptable.
The housing need figures, for rented accommodation in Alton are revised as follows (figures taken from Hampshire Homechoice Register):
1 bed: 463 2 bed: 222 3 bed: 78 4 bed: 21 Total: 784
Included within these figures are applicants who have a local connection with the parish (live, work or have family there). The JCS policy CP.13 requires affordable housing to be occupied by local eligible households. However, a cascade to the wider EHDC District is also required to ensure that private funding can be secured to procure the affordable homes. The numbers of applicants with this local connection are currently:
1 bed: 290 2 bed: 95 3 bed: 33 4 bed: 9 Total: 427
In addition to the housing need for rented accommodation there are a further 72 households registered with the local Help to Buy Agent requiring intermediate housing in Alton. The majority of this need is for two and three bedroom accommodation.
The affordable homes should be genuinely pepper-potted throughout the development as required by policy CP13 and the reserved matters application should address this.
Page 19 The Design and Quality of the affordable homes should be to HCA standards to ensure eligibility for grant, if available.
The size, type, location and tenure of the affordable housing provision should be agreed with Housing Development prior to the submission of a full or reserved matters application. This should then secured through a suitable legal agreement, with triggers for the transfer of the affordable housing land / units to an acceptable Registered Provider.
In summary, the affordable housing element, at Outline stage, is acceptable and I support this application proceeding.
Landscape Officer – Initial comments - No landscape objection as the lime tree on the frontage is proposed for retention in the new layout. The indicative masterplan shows some new trees within the new housing but more trees and hedges would be required to green the new residential roads. The south western boundary would also benefit from more tree planting. Consideration should be given to removing the Leyland Cypress hedgerow along the railway boundary and replacing it with deciduous trees and an evergreen hedge that is more suitable for small back garden boundaries eg: Prunus laurocerasus and Prunus lusitanica, which would be less dominant.
Second comments - My previous comments still stand. More trees have been proposed along the northeast and southwest boundary but the indicative Landscape Proposals plan shows retention of the leyland cypress hedge on the railway boundary whereas I recommended its removal. More trees and hedges are also recommended to green the frontages along the internal residential road.
Environment Agency – No comments received
EHDC Drainage Consultant - The site is located in Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding) and I am not aware of any historic flooding issues affecting this area. An FRA and Drainage Strategy Document 13-193-01A updated January 2014 has been submitted, showing the proposed SUDS system will cater for the 1:100 year + 30% climate change flood event and will not increase flood risk elsewhere. The drainage strategy indicates that run-off will be attenuated on site using permeable paving and soakaways prior to discharge to ground. The FRA and Drainage Strategy Document is satisfactory subject to further detail.
Foul drainage is indicated as being connected to the public foul sewer crossing the site, subject to Thames Water approval.
No objections in principle subject to satisfactory drainage systems for both foul and surface water. Any future planning application will require layout plans and drainage details. In addition a plan detailing overland flood flows and a maintenance management plan for surface water drainage features remaining private will be required.
Page 20 Refuse and Recycling Officer – No objection - If this estate is not to be adopted we would require a letter of indemnity for our waste collection contractors Biffa to access the site, this would initially be from the developer and once the site is completed a further letter from whoever will manage the estate.
Arboricultural Officer - Objection is raised against the proposal in it's present format. There should be no excavation in the Root Protection Area (RPA) of the important TPO'd Lime tree on the site frontage. The application shows a house being built within the area. I do not accept the argument that because the area is currently covered with hard surface that it will not have roots in the area. A tree of this size must have roots outside the small area of unsurfaced ground that it presently stands in. The proposal in it's present form will potentially cause significant damage to the tree and is, therefore, contrary to policy C6 of the currently adopted local plan. The applicant will either need to move the houses and the need for any excavation outside of the RPA (In which case an updated AIA, AMS and TPP should be required), or be able to demonstrate that there are no roots in the area. If they choose the later option I would like to be present on site when the investigation takes place. These investigations will need to be carried out in a way that does not harm any roots that may be present under the surface.
Comments on amended plans to be reported at the meeting
Environmental Health - Pollution - The site has the potential to be impacted by noise from the adjacent Watercress Line and traffic using Anstey Road. An acoustic report has been provided which demonstrates that the site is suitable for residential development. It considers both noise and vibration from the Watercress Line as well as noise from traffic using Anstey Road. It shows that the site is not adversely impacted by vibration. However, in order for the properties on the Anstey Road facade to fully achieve the suggested criteria for internal room noise levels, it is recommended that:
High performance, through wall vents are required for bedrooms, with acoustic vents with noise reducing properties being required for living areas.
The building facades on all elevations of the site should include the use of sealed double glazed window units of minimum specification, set out in section 6.0 of the report ref:13523/004/js
I have no objections to the proposal subject to a condition.
Environmental Health - Contaminated Land – No objection subject to conditions
County Highway Authority - This is a re-consultation as a result of further information having been received regarding a road safety audit, revised master plan and schedule of accommodation, indicative landscape scheme, revised affordable housing statement and ecology assessment.
Page 21 Vehicular access to the proposed site will be by way of a newly constructed access which will connect at the south eastern boundary to Anstey Road (C84BL). This section of Anstey Road is subject to a speed limit of 30mph. I note from the speed surveys that were carried out that the 85th percentile speed both northeast bound and southwest bound are approaching and in some cases exceeding, 40mph. Therefore, in the interests of highway safety, visibility splays consisting of that part within the applicant’s control of 2.4 metres by 105 metres will be applicable. Drawing 13731-P.01 (Master Plan) has been submitted and this shows a slightly different internal layout than was submitted previously. It is still not clear however, whether or not the site will be offered for adoption. If adoption is planned, the site should be designed in accordance with Manual for Streets and the County Council’s Companion Guide to Manual for Streets. A drawing should be submitted indicating which areas of the site are proposed for adoption.
I note that a number of instances of tandem parking are proposed. In front of many of these areas appears to be space to park a further vehicle, increasing this to triple tandem parking. In some cases however, this would lead to vehicles blocking the footway, causing pedestrians to walk out into the carriageway. Parking spaces are recommended to be a minimum of 2.4m by 4.8m. It is recommended that parking spaces adjacent to dwellings are at least 3.3m by 6.0m in order to give residents a hard surface on which to manoeuvre around the car whilst loading and unloading. However, I note that all car parking spaces are shown to be 2.4m by 4.8m.
Where parking spaces are situated between two dwellings, it should be arranged that no windows overhang the parking area as high-sided vehicles may be obstructed or damaged by open windows. It is recommended that garages have an internal size of 3m by 6m and they should be slightly longer if they are to incorporate cycle storage. Secure cycle storage for all properties is required by East Hampshire’s parking standards and details of the provision should be provided to the planning authority for approval.
Full swept path analysis should be provided as part of the full application, along with carriageway drainage details.
A Transport Contribution will be required in relation to the proposed site. The level of Transport Contribution relates directly to the impact of the proposed development through the formulaic approach set out in the Transport Contribution Policy, which attributes a cost per additional multi-modal trip, based upon the known cost of providing transport infrastructure to support development. The trip rates for residential uses have been derived from assumed household occupancy levels. In this instance, an estimated multi-modal trip rate of 3.7 trips per 1 bedroom dwelling, 7 trips per 2-3 bedroom dwelling and 10.2 trips per 4+ bedroom dwelling has been calculated, at a cost per multi-modal trip rate of £535. This equates to a contribution of £336,782.50
The additional vehicle trips will cause harm by worsening local congestion. This contribution is required to provide more sustainable travel choices and to manage growing travel demands in a sustainable way. The contribution will be used to fund local access schemes including improvements to pedestrian and cycle facilities, as identified within the East Hampshire
Page 22 Transport Statement.
The proposed Transport Contribution is in line with the three tests as set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 122 regulation. The contribution is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms because it will help fund local measures to accommodate the additional demands generated by the development. The contribution is directly related to the site because it is calculated on the basis of the number of trips generated by the site and will provide local improvements that ink the site to the wider transport network. The contribution is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development site, as it is based on the number of multi-modal trips anticipated to be generated by the site, based on the size of the dwellings to be provided, and therefore the impact of the site on the local transport network. The contribution will be used towards one of the following, or any other measures that directly benefit the site: EHDC0006 – London Road/Anstey Road, Alton – Junction improvements including signalisation – Estimated cost: £150,000 EHDC0009 – Anstey Lane, Anstey Road, Alton – Junction improvements including traffic calming, pedestrian facilities and parking controls – Estimated cost: £200,000 EHDC0029 – Holybourne to Four Marks (West of Alton), cycle route – Provision of cycle route between Holybourne and Four Marks – Estimated cost: £100,000
No objection subject to conditions
Conservation Officer - The site lies adjacent but predominantly outside the Anstey Conservation Area. In the immediate vicinity of the site the heritage assets include 69 - 79 Anstey Road and John Eggars Square (grade II listed). The former does not appear to be shown as listed in the D & A Statement Map (page 8). The interest from a Heritage perspective is the likely impact on the setting of the listed buildings and wider conservation area.
Anstey Road is a key route into Alton. Although the present sports ground serves as an open space it provides a negative frontage to Anstey Road. The close boarded fence and assortment of utilitarian sports building are unattractive and close off any sense of the open sports ground beyond.
The application is in outline only and restricted solely to the design of the new access. The supporting material nevertheless includes a significant amount of detail on a proposed layout, disposition of buildings and road layout which merits comment.
In principle I support the proposal. The development of the site for housing offers the opportunity to create a more positive frontage with buildings addressing the street. The proposed indicative layout bears some resemblance to Shipley Close roughly opposite. It is clearly important to retain and provide a suitable long term environment for the Lime Tree which sits strategically just within the conservation area. The arboricultural officer will provide the necessary expertise on what is required to achieve this.
Page 23 I do not have any overriding concerns about the proposed indicative layout and feel the setting of the listed buildings should be adequately preserved. It offers potentially a far more satisfactory solution to the site's development than the earlier superstore development to which I objected.
I would wish to see the opportunity taken to continue the "green" approach to the town by including new tree planting that can mature and develop over time to become a significant positive feature in the local townscape. There seems opportunities to achieve this on-site and possibly within the very wide, neglected and poorly maintained tarmac verge. I would wish attention also to be paid to the north-eastern boundary which is incomplete and of poor quality. This sits immediately adjacent to the terrace of listed buildings. It could do with softening. The parking proposed in this area seems tight and when considering a more detailed application consideration is required on how this sits with a planted buffer.
The success of the scheme will be dependant on the quality of materials and execution. I would expect a similar standard to that employed on Shipley Court.
I do not feel the development will harm the setting of the immediate listed buildings. Attention to detail and provision of appropriate tree planting and boundary treatment to the most visible boundaries would do much to enhance this entrance to the town. The sketch perspective is encouraging if translated into reality.
Alton Town Council - Except for the new vehicular access, the Council does not object in principle to the development of this site for housing as outlined in the application.
The Committee would however make the following observations:
(i) The design of the development lacks imagination, and would benefit from the entrance to the site being opened up and a more open and inviting access being created.
(ii) Whilst not considered to be an over-development of the site, the layout does not render itself to providing adequate turning provision for refuse collection or emergency vehicles.
(iii) Due consideration must be given to the impact any additional development has on sustainability of utilities and infrastructure, including schools, healthcare, drainage and sewage requirements of the town.
(iv) The Committee would also bring to the attention of EHDC that whilst the Covenant is not a material planning consideration, the Council has received a number of strong representations from residents that the principle on which the Covenant was formed must be taken into account by EHDC as a party to the Covenant.
(v) There is no evidence of any provision within the current plans for safe pedestrian crossing of Anstey Road from the proposed development.
Page 24 The Council does OBJECT to the proposed new vehicular access for the following material reasons:
(i) The proposal is likely to generate an unacceptable increase in vehicular traffic using a sub- standard access junction with Anstey Road to the detriment of highway safety.
(ii) There is inadequate provision for turning right into or out of the site without interfering with the flow of traffic in Anstey Road in what is already a heavily congested stretch of highway and which has a number of junctions in close proximity of the proposed development.
Representations
63 letters of objection and 4 of comment have been received raising the following concerns: a) increase in traffic and pollution; b) increase in noise and disturbance; c) safety concerns regarding the 4 schools and nursery on Anstey Road; d) impact on infrastructure and sustainability; e) impact on adjacent listed building and of other properties facing Anstey Road; f) developments opposite Eggars School and traffic lights have already had an adverse impact on traffic flow; g) High Street is already dying - people will not wish to shop if journey is even more difficult; h) covenant under threat; i) green space is important - would be sad to lose this 'protected' area; j) building will be an eye-sore for Anstey Lane; k) would further infill the historic gap that separates the village of Anstey from the old Grammar School and Alton workhouse; l) Transport Assessment unreliable and calculations in the appendices must be considered suspect; m) inadequate affordable housing proposed; n) impact on the loss of playing fields; o) SHLAA shows sites around Alton well in excess of the requirement for 700 extra houses; p) calculations within the Statement of Community Involvement cannot be viewed as a good level of support; q) inadequate Contaminated Land Risk Assessment; r) inadequate Ecological Appraisal; s) open spaces should be preserved; t) this development is not necessary; u) impact on surface drainage and sewerage; v) relocation of existing sports facilities is not a like for like or an improvement and contrary to NPPF para 74; w) residents already had to endure two housing estates in close proximity; x) overlooking and loss of privacy; y) the design, appearance and materials would impact on the immediate area; z) impact from floodlighting; za) development has been rejected twice and should be thrown out again;
Page 25 zb) boundary fencing required along Anstey Mill Close; zc) loss of valuable recreation facility; zd) development is surplus to requirements as defined by Alton's Local Plan and the Joint Core Strategy; ze) in dry periods, Alton has inadequate water supply necessitating hosepipe bans; zf) will end up being another ugly suburb; zg) question why the public and their opinions get ignored; zh) this is not good planning - this is madness; zi) cycle track cannot be achieved on this narrow road; zj) insufficient employment to absorb inflow of population; zk) development should wait until Neighbourhood Plan is in place; zl) eyesore because it has deliberately been allowed to become this way; zm) over-development of site, inadequate off-street parking and poor internal site layout; zn) once it is built on, it is gone forever; zo) amendments have not addressed objections to traffic, sewage and infrastructure; zp) ignored report and objections from Sport England; zq) if allowed, dwellings should be made available to local Alton people only; zr) £150k payment is not ring fenced for the benefit of the people of Alton; zs) impact on archaeology; and zt) Roman road could be under any development in the area.
28 letters of support have been received raising the following: a) change of access point to site is very good as it is away from the Anstey Lane junction; b) name of the development should be chosen by the people of Alton; c) site is closer to town centre than other greenfield applications; d) will allow local football and bowls clubs to flourish; e) sports ground is an eyesore; f) could improve the look of the Anstey Road area; g) Lime tree to be preserved and other tree planting and landscaping measures would make the road frontage more attractive; h) far better area for residential houses; i) the applicant has addressed the issue of loss of use to the existing sport club tenants with their other recent planning applications; j) has offered to compensate for the loss of land by way of a financial contribution to acquire new open space; k) if sports facility is supported, Alton has not lost anything but gained on both housing and facilities for local people; l) proposed new 3G pitch will be a wonderful new sporting addition; m) even with Chandos Lodge and possible Tesco developments, the roads/junctions can easily cope with this development; n) overall only 1% increase in Alton's current population of about 18,000; o) the covenant is not a material planning consideration and, therefore, not relevant at this stage; p) proposal is proportionate and in harmony with the local area; q) would provide help for first time buyers;
Page 26 r) new housing would be a visual improvement; s) will bring new people to the town to sustain local economy; t) not a true open space as hidden behind 6ft high fence; u) number of dwellings proposed is less than previous applications; and v) recommend railings instead of box hedge along Anstey Road.
Determining Issues
1. Principle of the development 2. Replacement sporting facilities 3. Access 4. Illustrative layout 5. Impact on listed buildings and conservation area 6. Impact on neighbouring properties 7. Landscaping and boundary treatments 8. Noise, vibration and contaminated land 9. Ecology 10. Energy efficiency 11. Drainage 12. Affordable housing 13. Archaeology 14. Developer contributions and S106
Planning Considerations
1. Principle of the development
The scheme is an outline application and only the principle of development and the access arrangements are detailed considerations at this stage. The site lies within the settlement policy boundary (SPB) for Alton, where the principle of development is normally acceptable subject to normal development management criteria. However, the site contains sports facilities, which normally would need to be replaced in order for the proposal to meet the aims of the National Panning Policy Framework (NPPF) and policy CP17 of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS). This point is dealt with below.
2. Replacement sporting facilities
The site contains three sporting elements – tennis courts, bowls pitch and 2 grass football pitches. Policy CP17 - Protection of open space, sport and recreation and built facilities - sets out that:
Development that results in the loss of a sport, recreation or play facility will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:
a) there is a surplus of provision according to the local open space and built facilities standards; or
Page 27 b) alternative facilities of equal or better quality and quantity can be provided in an equally accessible location.
Tennis facilities The tennis club which used the courts relocated to a new facility at Chawton Park Road in 2009. Given that the courts are no longer in use by the club and replacement facilities have already been provided, there is no requirement to replace that element of the sporting facilities.
Bowls facilities An application has been submitted to secure a new outdoor bowls facility on land at Chawton Park Road, adjacent to the indoor bowls facility. This is on land owned by the Town Council and it is understood that there has been separate negotiations between the developer and the Town Council to secure the land for this purpose. The proposed facility would be an equal/improved replacement for the existing and is considered to be appropriate by Sport England. The replacement facility would need to be secured by legal obligation to ensure it was provided before works commenced on site.
Football pitches The site contains 2 grass football pitches used by Alton Town Football Club. It is proposed that the club would merge with Alton United Football Club, who operates from the Football Ground in Anstey Park. An application has been submitted to up-grade that facility to the applicable Football Association (FA) standards to allow the Town Football Club to play there.
The up-grades to the Football Ground include replacement of the grass pitch with a FIFA approved artificial turf pitch, together with flood lights and other on-site improvements to fencing and changing facilities. The artificial pitch and flood lighting will allow greater use of the pitch for both clubs and for other sports.
Sport England has been supportive of these facilities and it is considered that they would provide significantly improved facilities for both clubs. As with the bowls facilities, the up- grades to the Football Ground would need to be secured before any works commenced on site, by way of a legal obligation.
Replacement grass pitches In addition to the above facilities, Sport England has required the reprovisioning of two grass pitches. This has been the subject to extensive investigation by the developer, facilitated by the Council’s Community Officers, to find and secure appropriate land in the town. The Town Council has no other suitable land and the search found only one suitable site that was possibly available for new grass pitches, adjacent to Anstey Park. However, the land owners subsequently withdrew any possibility of using that land and nothing else has since become available.
Sport England has been kept informed of the progress of this search and, in their revised comments, has recognised that extensive efforts have been made to find alterative land for grass pitches.
Page 28 Sport England has recognised that a developer contribution towards the reprovision of the pitches is an acceptable way forward in this instance. As a result, Sport England has withdrawn their objection to the scheme, subject to the various caveats set out in their consultation response, set out in full above. The contribution would be secured via a legal obligation.
Subject to completion of the legal obligation, the replacement facilities would satisfy the requirements of the NPPF, policy CP17 of the JCS and Sport England.
3. Access
The application include a Transport Assessment (TA) and details of the access, moved to the west, to a more central location with the existing access stopped up. The wide footway along this side of Anstey Road provides adequate sightlines (2.4 metres by 105 metres), subject to the bus stop being moved along the road away from the access point. The access onto Anstey Road has been the subject of amendments requested by County Highways and a Safety Audit. The simple T junction arrangement has been shown to be adequate to serve this scale of development, taking into account both the existing and proposed traffic flows along Anstey Road.
Significant concern has been expressed as to the likely increased flows as a result of proposed development at this end of the town, in particular at Cadnams Farm. Whilst Cadnams Farm is still at the application stage, it is clear from the TA submitted with that application that the scheme would require significant improvements to the junction of Anstey Lane and Anstey Road, as the junction would be operating at over-capacity as a result of that development. To meet that requirement, a roundabout has been proposed at the junction, which takes into account both the existing access into the application site and that proposed. The roundabout would have the benefit of slowing traffic passing along Anstey Road in front of the application site, increasing the capacity of that road so that it could accommodate traffic generation from both developments.
If the improvements to the Anstey Road/Anstey Lane junction were not to go ahead, then the developer contribution required by the County would be put towards a signalised junction arrangement, which would increase the capacity of the junction and local roads. In either event, the proposed access arrangement and increased traffic would not cause harm to road safety or significant congestion, and as such would be acceptable.
The access includes footpaths on both sides coming into the site, together with a footpath entrance in the north-western corner of the site from Anstey Road. The circular road system within the site, illustrative at this stage, would be constructed to adoptable standards, although it is not clear at this stage whether the roads would be adopted by the County Council. The two shared surface cul-de-sacs and parking courts would be unlikely to be adopted in any event. Parking would be provided to meet adoptable standards with the majority of the parking being on-plot. The scheme currently shows no garages but this may change at the reserved matters stage. If garages are not provided, then secure cycle storage will need to be provided for each property, normally in the form of a shed in the rear garden.
Page 29 The site is in a sustainable location, within level walking distance of shops, the railway station, doctors’ surgery and schools. There is a bus stop outside of the site going west with another a short distance down Anstey Road to the west, going east, providing a regular bus line to and from the town centre and Winchester or Farnham and Guildford.
The access arrangements meet the requirements of the Highway Authority and would not cause excessive traffic on the local road network. The proposal would accord with the requirements of policy CP31 of the JCS and T3 and T4 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.
4. Illustrative layout
The layout shows perimeter development with houses backing on to existing round all but one part of the site, in the north-eastern corner, where houses in Anstey Road front the site. Here, a shared access surface, together with the access road outside of the site, would separate the dwellings. The design shows three outward facing perimeter blocks, with a mixture of detached, semi-detached and small terraces. There are two small blocks of flats towards the rear of the site, with associated parking courts.
The layout shows a minimum separation of 10-12 m between proposed dwellings and the boundary, with greater distances shown where neighbouring properties are close to the boundary, or the dwellings turned through 90 degrees to avoid any direct over-looking. The scale of development is shown as being two or two and half storey (with the second floor within the roof space), but this would be subject of a reserved matter application, as would details of the appearance of the dwellings and flats.
The site frontage would be similar to that of Eggars School site adjacent or Shipley Close opposite, with a wall running along the frontage with landscaping behind. The protected lime in the north-eastern corner is retained, with greater space now shown round the tree and no parking beneath.
The amended layout shows additional planting along the north-eastern and railway boundaries, to supplement the existing planting. In the case of the railway embankment, the planting once established, would allow for the removal of the leylandii.
The layout is considered to be satisfactory for this amount of development and 85 dwellings could be accommodated on this site in a manner so as to not cause harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties or the character of the area.
5. Impact on listed buildings and conservation area
The site lies between two sets of listed buildings and adjacent to a conservation area. The development of the site will significantly alter the appearance of the area. Currently, the public view of the site is of a 2m high close boarded fence running along the back of pavement along Anstey Road and the site entrance with the club house beyond.
Page 30 The illustrative layout shows the fence being replaced by a wall, similar to that along the Eggars School site or Shipley Close, with landscaping behind, then the houses beyond.
The key consideration is whether the development would cause harm to the setting of the listed buildings and whether it would preserve or enhance that setting and the setting of the conservation area.
The removal of the fence and replacement with a wall and landscaping would be a significant improvement to the street scene. The fact that you would see houses beyond would not in itself cause harm to the street scene. The pattern of development would be similar to that in the area and of the listed school, both preserving and enhancing the setting of the listed buildings and conservation area.
The open character of the site is not particularly evident when viewed from John Eggars Square, as it is screened by fencing, high ball protection fencing and buildings within the Square. The layout shows the dwellings set back from the boundary and would be possible to restrict development to two storeys in height adjacent in this part of the site, so would not have a significant impact when viewed from the Square. The main school building is set away from the joint boundary, with a former class room building in between. It is considered that the proposed development would not cause any harm to the setting of the listed building, whilst removal of the high ball protection netting and posts would be an enhancement.
The setting of the listed buildings and conservation area on the eastern side of the site would benefit from the removal of the club house and other structures, closure of the access and removal of parking area. The landscaping on this boundary is to be increased and the houses would be set back. Whilst the outlook of the houses over the open field and club house would change, the scheme is considered to be overall beneficial to the setting of the listed buildings and the conservation area.
Whist the scheme would significantly change the appearance of the area, it is considered to result overall in the enhancement of the setting of the listed buildings and the conservation area.
6. Impact on neighbouring properties
The relationship with neighbouring properties has been set out in the two sections above. The distances between proposed and existing dwellings shown on the illustrative layout is such that the development would not cause significant harm to the amenity of adjacent properties. The relationship between windows and amenity areas would need to be considered at the reserved matters stage, but the layout shows that a development could be accommodated in this manner without causing significant harm.
7. Landscaping and boundary treatments
As set out above, the proposal would provide a significantly improved frontage to Anstey Road and additional planting along the other boundaries.
Page 31 Gaps in the hedging along the rear of properties in Anstey Mill Close would be planted with appropriate native species. In the longer term, the leylandii to the railway line could be removed, once other planting had been established. The final boundary treatments would be the subject of detailed approval as part of the reserved matters but the indicative scheme submitted shows that the development could provide adequate additional landscaping and other boundary treatments to secure the protection of the amenity of neighbouring properties and the enhancement of the appearance of the area.
8. Noise, vibration and contaminated land
Due to the proximity of the railway line, the main Alton - Waterloo line and the industrial estate beyond, details of the noise and vibration have been submitted as part of the application information. Of greater concern, however, is the noise generated by traffic using Anstey Road.
The details have been assessed by the Council's Environmental Health Officer, who confirms that the site is suitable for residential development. The acoustic report considers both noise and vibration from the railway line as well as noise from traffic using Anstey Road and shows that the site is not adversely impacted by vibration. However, in order for the properties on the Anstey Road facade to fully achieve the suggested criteria for internal room noise levels, mitigation measure will be required. These include acoustic quality double glazed units and mechanical ventilation of rooms fronting onto Anstey Road. These measures can be secured by condition.
The site has potential for contamination due to the proximity of the railway line and the industrial estate beyond. Whilst there is potential, this is unlikely to prevent development, subject to suitable mitigation taking place should any be found. Conditions are, therefore, recommended to secure initial studies and suitable mitigation measures should any contamination be found.
9. Ecology
Whilst the site is generally of low ecological value due to its current use, the timber buildings to be removed do have potential for bat roosts to be present. Further information has been submitted reporting that no evidence of bat roosts has been found. The County Ecologist has reviewed the information and raises no objection to the proposal, subject to a suitably worded condition to secure the timing of the development and the provision of suitable enhancement and mitigation measures within the development.
10. Energy efficiency
Policy CP24 of the JCS requires new development to promote the conservation of energy by seeking the highest practicable degree of energy efficiency. In this instance, on completion, the dwelling should meet at least level 4 Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) threshold and must provide at least 10% of energy demand from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy sources.
Page 32
Given the sustainable location of the site, all dwellings would be able to achieve level 4 CSH through a reduction in energy demand and that at least 10% of the energy will be gathered through photovoltaic panels on each dwelling.
11. Drainage
The site is located in Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding) and it is not in an area where any historic flooding issues occur. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Drainage Strategy document has been submitted, showing the proposed Sustainable Urban Drainage System will cater for the 1:100 year + 30% climate change flood event and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. The drainage strategy indicates that run-off would be attenuated on-site using permeable paving and soakaways prior to discharge to ground. The FRA and Drainage Strategy Document is satisfactory subject to further detail being secured by condition.
Foul drainage would be disposed of via the main sewer which crosses the site. Thames Water has raised no objection to the scheme subject to a Grampian condition relating to infrastructure provision. The improvements to be delivered in agreement with Thames water are such that they would not impact on the deliverability of the scheme.
12. Affordable housing
The Hampshire Homechoice Register at the time the application was made showed a need for 784 affordable units in Alton. Of these, 427 households have a local connection with the town. A further 72 households are registered with the local Help to Buy Agent requiring intermediate housing in Alton. The majority of this need is for two and three bedroom accommodation.
The amended scheme is in line with comments made by the Housing Officer. The applicant has adjusted the affordable mix to comprise 6 x one bedroom flats, 6 x two bedroom flats, 11 x two bedroom houses, 5 x three bedroom houses and 2 x four bedroom houses, with a tenure split of 70% affordable rent to 30% intermediate. The scheme would provide 35% affordable units (30 units), which accords with the relevant policy for affordable housing provision at the time the application was submitted (policy H11 of the Second Review). Since that time, the JCS has been adopted with policy CP13 requiring 40% affordable units. Having regard to the time it has taken to bring a positive recommendation to Committee and the other benefits being secured for the community, this level of affordable housing is considered to be adequate.
Subject to this being secured via a legal obligation, together with the mechanism for allocation, the Housing Officer supports the scheme.
13. Archaeology
The County Archaeologist advises that the site is likely to contain pre-historic and Roman archaeology, including the route of the Roman Road running from Winchester to London.
Page 33 A full scheme of archaeological investigation would, therefore, need to take place before any works could commence on site. Conditions are to be imposed to ensure that this takes place.
14. Developer contributions and S106 legal obligation
The three tests as set out in Regulation 122(2) require S.106 agreements to be:
(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
As the application proposes the provision of 85 additional residential units, in order for the development to be acceptable in planning terms, a S.106 legal obligation is required to secure the following contributions:
1. Payment of a financial contribution (in lieu of on-site provision) towards public open space and recreational facilities: £114,750 in accordance with policy CP18 of the JCS; 2. Payment of a financial contribution towards community facilities: £47,430 in accordance with Policy CP32 of the JCS; 3. Payment of a financial contribution towards transport improvements: £336,786 in accordance with policies CP31 of the JCS and T2 of the Local Plan; 4. Payment of a financial contribution towards education provision: £394,446 in accordance with policy CP32 of the JCS; 5. Provision of affordable housing to comprise 35% of the total dwellings built on the site in accordance with policy CP13 of the JCS; 6. Payment of a financial contribution for the acquisition and/or the delivery of land for sport and recreation use (in lieu of land lost at Alton Sports Ground): £150,000 in accordance with policy CP17 of the JCS; and 7. Administration of Section 106 Legal Agreement: £10,000 in accordance with the Council's 'Guide to Developer Contributions' 2014.
The obligation would also need to secure the provision and timing of the replacement bowls facility and the improvements to Alton Football Ground in Anstey Park.
Subject to the legal obligation being satisfactorily completed to secure points 1-7 above, the proposal would accord with policies CP13, CP18, CP31 and CP32 of the JCS and policy T2 of the Local Plan and the Council's 'Guide to Developer Contributions' 2014, together with the requirements of Sport England.
Response to Town Council Comments
The concerns and objection raised by the Town Council have been considered in the above report.
Page 34 Conclusion
The site lies within the settlement policy boundary of Alton where development is considered to be acceptable in principle. The scheme makes adequate provision for the replacement of the existing sports facilities at off-site locations. The development would change the appearance of the area but this is considered to enhance the setting of adjacent listed buildings and the setting of the adjacent Anstey Conservation Area. The development is in keeping with the pattern and character of development in the area and the site could accommodate this number of units without causing significant harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties. The scheme provides adequate access onto Anstey Road and would not cause significant harm or inconvenience to other highway users, and takes into account other proposed developments at this end of the town. The proposal accords with policies contained within the JCS and the Local Plan: Second Review and with the NPPF.
RECOMMENDATION
Provided that:
A) the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to draw up a S106 legal obligation , and
B) provided that by 9 th January 2015, all parties enter into the S106 legal obligation with the District Council to secure:
I. Payment of a financial contribution (in lieu of on-site provision) towards public open space and recreational facilities: £114,750 in accordance with policy CP18 of the JCS; II. Payment of a financial contribution towards community facilities: £47,430 in accordance with Policy CP32 of the JCS; III. Payment of a financial contribution towards transport improvements: £336,786 in accordance with policies CP31 of the JCS and T2 of the Local Plan; IV. Payment of a financial contribution towards education provision: £394,446 in accordance with policy CP32 of the JCS; V. Provision of affordable housing to comprise 35% of the total dwellings built on the site in accordance with policy CP13 of the JCS; VI. Payment of a financial contribution for the acquisition and/or the delivery of land for sport and recreation use (in lieu of land lost at Alton Sports Ground): £150,000 in accordance with policy CP17 of the JCS; VII. Administration of Section 106 Legal Agreement: £10,000 in accordance with the Council's 'Guide to Developer Contributions' 2014, VIII. Provision of the bowls facility permitted under application reference 21068/038 and the improvements to Anstey Lane Football Club permitted under application reference 52457/002, both before any works commence on the application site, and IX. Maintenance and management of communal areas, landscaped areas, parking courts, lighting (where not adopted) and the surface water drainage system, then the Service Manager Planning Development be authorised to grant OUTLINE PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out below.
Page 35 However, in the event that a satisfactory legal obligation to secure I-IX above is not submitted by 9 th January 2015, then the application will be refused under the adopted scheme of delegation.
1 Applications for the approval of the matters referred to herein shall be made within a period of three years from the date of this permission. The development to which the permission relates shall be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:- (i) three years from the date of this permission; or (ii) two years from the final approval of the said reserved matters, or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. Reason - To comply with the provisions of Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.
2 No development shall start, or if a phasing plan has first been agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, until plans and particulars showing the detailed proposals for all the following aspects of the development or the individual phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. These details shall comprise the 'reserved matters' and shall be submitted within the time constraints referred to in Condition 1 and comprise:-
(a) Appearance in respect of the aspects of any building or place within the development which determine the visual impression the building or place makes, including the external built form of the development, its architecture, materials, decoration, lighting, colour and texture; (b) Landscaping in relation to the means the treatment of land (other than buildings) for the purpose of enhancing or protecting the amenities of the site and the area in which it is situated and includes screening by fences, walls or other means, the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs or grass, the formation of banks, terraces or other earthworks, the laying out or provision of gardens, courts or squares, water features, sculpture, or public art, and the provis ion of other amenity features; (c) Landscaping showing the position, type and spread of all existing trees on the site and a schedule detailing the size and a schedule detailing the size and physical condition of each tree and, where appropriate , the step s to be taken to bring the tree(s) to be retained to a satisfactory condition and also details of any proposals for the felling, lopping, topping or up-rooting of any tree; (d) Arrangements to be made for the future maintenance of landscaped and other open areas;
Page 36
(e) Layout of the development with respect to the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces within the development are provided, situated and orientated in relation to each other and to buildings and spaces outside the development; (f) The provision to be made for the parking, turning, loading and unloading of vehicles; (g) Details of a scheme for foul and surface water drainage to include the layout of foul sewers and water drains; (h) Scale with respect to the height, width and length of each building proposed within the development in relation to its surroundings; (i) The provision of street lighting, street furniture, lighting (including security lighting), bollards etc; (j) The provision to be made for the storage and removal of refuse from each part of the development; (k) The phasing of the development; Each of the above matters shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before either any part of the development is occupied, or in accordance with an agreed phasing plan, whichever is the later, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason - To comply with Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order).
3 No development shall start on site until a construction method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, which shall include: (a) A programme of and phasing of demolition and construction work; (b) The provision of long term facilities for contractor parking; (c) The arrangements for deliveries associated with all construction works; (d) Methods and phasing of construction works; (e) Access and egress for plant and machinery; (f) Protection of pedestrian routes during construction; (g) Location of temporary site buildings, compounds, construction material, and plant storage areas; (h) Controls over dust, noise, and vibration during the construction period; (i) Provision for storage, collection, and disposal of rubbish from the development during construction period; and (j) Re-use of on site material and spoil arising from any site clearance or demolition work. Demolition and construction work shall only take place in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason - In order that the Planning Authority can properly consider the effect of the works on the amenity of the locality.
Page 37
4 No development shall start on site until plans of the site showing details of the existing and proposed ground levels, proposed finished floor levels, levels of any paths, drives, garages and parking areas and the proposed completed height of the development and any retaining walls have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The details shall clearly identify the relationship of the proposed ground levels and proposed completed height with adjacent buildings. The development thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure that a satisfactory relationship results between the new development and adjacent buildings and public areas.
5 No development shall start on site until details of any surface water drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details should include provision for all surface water drainage from parking areas and areas of hardstanding. The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for drainage.
6 Development shall not commence until a foul waste drainage strategy detailing all on and/or off site drainage works and including provision for a connection into the public system , has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be accepted into the public system until the drainage works referred to in the strategy have been completed. Reason - To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community.
7 All dwellings shall be constructed to meet Code Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes Standards, or higher, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and before any dwelling is first occupied a verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Authority, confirming the dwelling permitted incorporates measures that provide at least 10% of the predicted energy requirement from on-site renewable sources, or, provided that first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority before development starts on site, an alternative means of achieving an equivalent energy saving. The developer shall nominate a competent person for the purpose of assessing and providing the above required report and certificate to confirm that the completed works incorporate such measures as to provide the required energy savings.
Page 38
The energy saving works set out in the above report shall thereafter be maintained so that the required energy saving is sustained at the certified level for the lifetime of the development. (Note:- The carbon savings which result from these measures are required to be above and beyond any savings provided by measures incorporated into the development to comply with Part L Building Regulations). Reason - To ensure that the development incorporates necessary mitigation and adaptation measures with regard to climate change.
8 No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological assessment in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation that has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The archaeological assessment shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing before with the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To assess the extent, nature and date of any archaeological deposits that might be present and the impact of the development upon these heritage assets.
9 No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological mitigation of impact in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation that has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The programme of archaeological mitigation shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing before with the Local Planning Authority. Reason -To mitigate the effect of the works associated with the development upon any heritage assets and to ensure that information regarding these heritage assets is preserved by record for future generations.
10 Following completion of archaeological fieldwork, 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. Reason - To contribute to our knowledge and understanding of our past by ensuring that opportunities are taken to capture evidence from the historic environment and to make this publicly available.
11 The recommendations of the acoustic report (dated 22nd January 2014, ref:13523/004/js) shall be incorporated into the final design for the site and the dwellings constructed in accordance with those recommendations before first occupation. The required measures shall be retained thereafter.
Page 39 Reason - To protect the amenity of the future residents of the site.
12 No development shall start on site until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority :- (a) a desk top study report, documenting all the previous and existing land uses both on and adjacent to the site and including a conceptual site model and preliminary risk assessment. The report should be completed by a competent person and produced in accordance with national guidance, as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report No.11 and BS10175:2001; and unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority:- (b) a scheme outlining a site investigation and risk assessments designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site; (c) a written report of the findings which includes, a description of the extent, scale and nature of contamination, an assessment of all potential risks to known receptors, an update of the conceptual site model (devised in the desktop study), identification of all pollutant linkages and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and identified as unnecessary in the written report, an appraisal of remediation options and proposal of the preferred option(s) identified as appropriate for the type of contamination found on site; and unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority:- (d) a detailed remediation scheme designed to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment. The scheme should include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works, site management procedures and a verification plan outlining details of the data to be collected in order to demonstrate the completion of the remediation works and any arrangements for the continued monitoring of identified pollutant linkages. Site works and details submitted shall be in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person.
The above reports and site works should be undertaken in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.
Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.
Page 40
13 Before any part of the development is occupied or used (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation works carried out and a completion certificate confirming that the approved remediation scheme has been implemented in full shall both have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.
14 All development shall be stopped immediately in the event that contamination not previously identified is found to be present on the development site and details of the contamination shall be reported immediately in writing to the Planning Authority.
Development shall not re-start on site until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority:- (a) a scheme outlining a site investigation and risk assessments designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site. (b) a written report of the findings which includes, a description of the extent, scale and nature of contamination, an assessment of all potential risks to known receptors, an update of the conceptual site model (devised in the desktop study), identification of all pollutant linkages and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and identified as unnecessary in the written report, an appraisal of remediation options and proposal of the preferred option(s) identified as appropriate for the type of contamination found on site and (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) (c) a detailed remediation scheme designed to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment. The scheme should include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works, site management procedures and a verification plan outlining details of the data to be collected in order to demonstrate the completion of the remediation works and any arrangements for the continued monitoring of identified pollutant linkages;
Page 41
and before any part of the development is occupied or used (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation works carried out and a completion certificate confirming that the approved remediation scheme has been implemented in full shall both have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
The above site works, details and certification submitted shall be in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.
15 Prior to commencement of any works on site, including demolition, a site- wide ecological mitigation and enhancement plan for the development site shall be submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority. This plan should include (but not necessarily be restricted to) e.g.: location, extent and timing of vegetation loss; measures to safeguard protected species during construction and operation (e.g. reptile mitigation, nesting birds, lighting and bats); location, extent and ongoing management of mitigation features. Demolition and development shall subsequently proceed in accordance with any such approved plan, with all biodiversity mitigation, compensation and enhancement features permanently retained in accordance with the approved Plan. Reason - To conserve and enhance biodiversity in accordance with the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, NERC Act 2006, NPPF and with Policy CP21 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy.
16 No development shall start on site until the access, including the footway and/or verge crossing shall be constructed and lines of sight of 2.4 metres by 105 metres provided in accordance with the approved plans. The lines of sight splays shown on the approved plans shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 1 metre in height above the adjacent carriageway and shall be subsequently maintained so thereafter. Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interests of highway safety.
17 Before use of the development is commenced provision for parking shall have been made within the site in accordance with the approved plans and shall be retained solely for parking purposes thereafter.
Page 42
Reason - To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision for the approved development.
18 No development shall start on site until plans and particulars showing details of the provisions of bin/cycle storage within the site have been submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the use of the development is commenced and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision within the site.
19 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars:
Application Form Design and Access Statement Planning Statement Travel Plan Transport Assessment Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Strategy Contaminated Land Risk Assessment Phase 1 Desk Top Study Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment Site Noise and Vibration Survey and Assessment Tree Survey Report Arboricultural Development Statement Ecological Appraisal Statement of Community Involvement Air Quality Assessment Drg No. 13731-P.01.001 - Location Plan Drg No. 13731-P.01.002 - Existing Site Plan Drg No. 13731-P.01.020 - Land Use, Building Heights and Access Plan Drg No. 13731-P.01.030 Rev B - Indicative Master Plan Drg No. 13731-P.01.031 - Indicative Schedule of Accommodation Drg No. 13731-P.01.032 - Indicative Master Plan with Aerial View
Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development
Informative Notes to Applicant:
1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach and works with applicants/agents on development proposals in a manner focused on solutions by:
• offering a pre-application advice service,
Page 43
• updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,
• by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter.
In this instance, the applicant was provided with pre-application advice and updated of any issues after the initial site visit.
2 Please note that there is a Section 106 Agreement that applies to this permission.
CASE OFFICER: Julia Mansi 01730 234236 ———————————————————————————————————————
Page 44
SECTION 1 Item 1 Alton Sports & Social Club, Anstey Road, Alton, GU34 2RL
Illustrative layout plan
Page 45 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 46
Page 47
Item No.: 02
The information, recommendations, and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.
PROPOSAL Erection of 17 dwellings on land at corner of Fullers Road, Rowledge and A325 (Additional/Amended information received 03/10/2014). LOCATION: Land West of Linden, Fullers Road, Rowledge, Farnham REFERENCE : 50463 PARISH:Binsted APPLICANT: Bewley Homes Plc CONSULTATION EXPIRY : 20 November 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY : 03 October 2014 COUNCILLOR: Cllr K Carter SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL
This application has been included on the agenda as it is a departure from the adopted policies of the Local Plan and is being considered under the Interim Housing Policy Statement.
Site and Development
Application site The site occupies a prominent corner position where Fullers Road, which runs to the north, meets the A325 which runs along its western boundary. The site extends to 0.74ha, roughly square in shape, and is dominated by a dense thicket of small trees and bushes which collectively add to the established character of the local area. The site is located at the bottom of a dip in the A325 and, consequently, ensures the land is highly visible.
The site falls outside the settlement policy boundary (SPB) but directly adjoins it to the east, which comprises, primarily single storey dwellings, to the north and east of the site in a linear form fronting Fullers Road. 'Linden', the property closest to the site to the east, is a detached bungalow. A stream forms the southern boundary of the site beyond which lies open fields and the South Downs National Park. More immediately, across the A325 to the west, lies the boundary of the South Downs National Park. Properties fronting the A325 to the north are generally single storey, the only exception being a pair of semi- detached houses that are located on the western side of the main road.
Proposed development The full application is for 17 dwellings with associated open space, car parking and access off Fullers Road to the north.
Page 48 During the course of the application additional/amended information has been provided by the applicant to address the comments raised by statutory consultees. The additional information has included:
• Response to the County Ecologist's concerns • Response to comments raised by the Council's Landscape Officer and SDNP Link Officer • Submission of a Road Safety Audit • Submission of a parking layout to accommodate 4 additional spaces • Minor re-siting of some of the plots • Reduction in ridge heights • Reinforced landscaping on boundary with A325
The main proposals are:
• Application seeks full permission for 17 units with associated open space, car parking and access road. • Promoted under the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement (IHPS) • 10 market units, 7 affordable units • Density of 23dph • Height of buildings: 7.2m - 8.8m • Access from Fullers Road • Open market housing: 4 x 2 bed; 2 x 3 bed; 4 x 4 bed • Affordable housing: 4 x 2 bed; 3 x 3 bed
The application is also supported by detailed reports, including;
• Design and Access Statement • Planning Statement • Ecological Appraisal • Statement of Community Involvement • Drainage & Utilities Investigation Report • Code for Sustainable Homes Report • Arboricultural Impact assessment/Tree Report • Landscape Specification • Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment • Noise Assessment • Highway Statement/Road Safety Audit • Energy Statement • Desk Study, Site Investigation & Risk Assessment Report
Relevant Planning History
None relevant
Page 49
Development Plan Policies and Proposals
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014)
CP1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development CP2 - Spatial Strategy CP10 - Spatial strategy for housing CP11 - Housing tenure, type and mix CP13 - Affordable housing on residential development sites CP16 - Protection and provision of social infrastructure CP18 - Provision of open space, sport and recreation and built facilities CP19 - Development in the countryside CP20 - Landscape CP21 - Biodiversity CP24 - Sustainable construction CP25 - Flood Risk CP26 - Water resources/ water quality CP27 - Pollution CP28 - Green Infrastructure CP29 - Design CP30 - Historic Environment CP31 - Transport CP32 - Infrastructure
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (2006)
H14 - Other Housing Outside Settlement Policy Boundaries T3 - Pedestrians and Cyclists T4 - Protection of Public Footpaths HE17 - Archaeological & Ancient Monuments P7 - Contaminated Land
Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The NPPF was published in March 2012 and came into force with immediate effect. At the heart of it is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It states that the development plan is the starting point for consideration of planning applications, and planning applications must be determined in accordance with it, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.” (paragraph 49). Housing supply is addressed later in this report.
Page 50
Binsted Parish Plan 2010
Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments
Environment Agency - Having screened the planning application with regard to the low risk of the development type and location of the proposal, we have no comments to make.
Natural England - No objection.
Thames Water - No objection, but recommends informatives.
South Downs National Park Authority - Initial comments:
"Any development on this site would not be welcomed by the South Downs National Park Authority. The site is outside the Settlement Policy boundary and directly opposite the South Downs National Park where landscape setting is an important consideration. It is essential that hard lines of housing on the Park’s boundaries are avoided.
The proposed site layout shows all the roadside hawthorn and goat willow along the western boundary would be removed to facilitate development on the road frontage of the A325 which would completely change the green outlook from the SDNP and therefore have an adverse effect on its setting. Removal of the existing landscape features would open up views of the new houses and since the proposed replacement planting on the western boundary of the site consists of a single line of trees the visual impact would not be mitigated satisfactorily.
If the proposed development were allowed and implemented it would have an adverse impact on the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the SDNP or its setting."
Comments on the slightly revised layout will be reported on the supplementary sheets
HCC Highways - Has raised an objection based on insufficient information (no Road Safety Audit) and insufficient parking provision on-site. The applicant has submitted additional information but no response has yet been received from the highway authority (final response to be reported on the supplementary sheets)
HCC School Organisation Officer - I have no adverse comments to make in respect of the application and will not be seeking a contribution to expand the primary school.
HCC Ecologist - comments that the site has been subject to a basic Phase 1 level ecological survey which has essentially identified no ecological constraints. I disagree with this assessment and consider that further work is needed to clarify the potential presence of legally-protected species (hazel dormouse, bats) as well as to establish the ecological value of and likelihood of impact to the on-site watercourse. Proposed mitigation and enhancement measures are all generic in nature and not linked to the actual development proposals.
Page 51
The applicant has submitted additional information to address the concerns but no response has yet been received from the County Ecologist (final response to be reported on the supplementary sheets)
HCC Archaeologist - No objection, subject to conditions.
Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service - No objection but recommends informatives.
EHDC Housing Officer - No objection
EHDC Recycling and Refuse - No objection but recommends an informative.
EHDC Environment Health, Pollution Team - Has not raised an objection but states that there is not enough detail to be satisfied with the noise protection measures at the residential dwellings nearest the A325. Conditions therefore recommended to control this.
EHDC Environment Health, Contaminated Land Team - No objection, subject to conditions.
EHDC Landscape Officer - Initial comments:
"The proposed development is outside the Settlement Policy boundary and directly opposite the South Downs National Park where landscape setting is an important consideration. Development of the road frontage would completely change the green outlook from the SDNP and therefore have an adverse effect on its setting. I recommend that any development on this site should be set well back from the A325 with the existing landscape buffer retained and reinforced.
The Soft Landscape Proposals Plan shows more existing trees and shrubs to be retained than the Tree Protection Plan, which indicates that only 3 trees on the northern boundary are to be retained. The LVIA states that there will be a very small change from viewpoint 6 on the A325, of minor visual effect reducing to neglible. However, since it is proposed to remove all the roadside hawthorn and goat willow along the western boundary, this would open up views of the new houses that would only be partially screened in time by the proposed line of trees, therefore the visual impact would be medium. If the development is permitted, a condition should be applied to extend and widen the area of shrub planting under either end of the proposed line of trees to provide a more effective screen."
Comments on revised layout/landscaping:
"They have increased the width of the landscape buffer along the A325 but they do not show retention of any existing vegetation there and they have reduced the number of proposed trees from those shown on BEW19188-11C, therefore more landscape information is required to assess whether the buffer will be effective."
EHDC Arboricultural Officer - No objection, subject to a condition being imposed
EHDC Drainage Consultant - No objection, subject to conditions requiring details of
Page 52 drainage systems for both foul and surface water.
Binsted Parish Council : No objection, subject to:
• Highways approval - especially with regards for pedestrian and vehicle safety combined with visibility splays will continually meet current regulations where land within this area could encroach these splays is privately owned and may not be maintained to meet this standard. • An archaeological assessment is completed prior to any development • Limited that development has to be started within 2 years if approval is granted • Existing drainage is CCTV surveyed to ensure it is fit for purpose prior to any development We also note with concern that the School Organisation Officer has "no adverse comments to make in respect of the application and will not be seeking a contribution to expand the primary school" when all the available knowledge to us, is that that the current school capacity is at maximum therefore cannot support extra pupils without issues
Representations
49 letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns; a) increase in traffic and road safety issues; b) site creates a dependence on private car use; c) inadequate provision for sustainable transport; inadequate car parking, particularly for visitors and deliveries; d) transport statement is inadequate and not a reflection of reality; e) would put a strain on local facilities and services already under pressure, in particular schools and surgery; f) would put a strain on the drainage and sewage system already under pressure; g) site lies outside settlement policy boundary; h) loss of wildlife; i) loss of trees; j) increase in pollution; k) represents over development; l) size, scale, layout and density out of proportion and character with the ribbon development in the area; m) smaller houses required in the village; n) there are more preferred and appropriate brownfield sites elsewhere; o) sets a precedence for future development; p) contrary to local planning policies, Interim Housing Policy Statement and the NPPF; q) contravenes Farnham village design statement; r) adjoining Local Authority should be consulted; s) borders the South Downs National Park; t) lack of street lighting, in turn creating safety/crime issues; u) lack of provision of footpaths; v) increase in noise and disturbance.
Determining Issues
1. Development plan and material considerations
Page 53 2. Principle of development 3. Deliverability 4. Affordable housing 5. Access and highway issues 6. Impact on neighbouring properties 7. Impact on the character of the area 8. Trees and ecology 9. Drainage 10. Energy conservation 11. Developer contributions
Planning Considerations
The key considerations in the determination of this planning application relate, firstly, to the principle of housing on this site, given its countryside position, having regard to the development plan and the lack of sufficient housing land supply within the district which has led to the publication of the Interim Housing Policy Statement. As part of the consideration of the principle of development aspects including the amount of housing proposed, the location and sustainability of the site and the credentials of the application as a deliverable prospect are also key.
1. Development plan and material considerations
As required by Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, applications must be determined in line with the adopted development plan for the area, unless material considerations apply. The development plan for EHDC comprises the 'saved' policies of the 2006 Local Plan: Second Review and the policies set out in the adopted Joint Core Strategy.
A significant material consideration is the NPPF, particularly paragraph 49 which confirms that whilst the local planning authority does not have a five year housing supply relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date. East Hampshire District Council does not have a five year supply of housing.
The effect of paragraph 49 of the NPPF is that saved Local Plan policies and JCS policies which restrict market housing development within the countryside beyond designated settlement policy boundaries (SPBs) are, therefore, not considered up-to-date. Whilst many objectors to the application point to restrictions on development outside settlement policy boundaries as sufficient grounds for resisting the application and oppose encroachment into greenfield sites, it is not. There are two reasons for this, firstly, the impact of paragraph 49, and secondly, the Council recognises that the District's housing requirements, as now identified in the Joint Core Strategy, is significantly larger than has previously been the case that development outside the SPBs identified in the Local Plan: Second Review, on greenfield sites, will be essential to meet the new target. The identification of the essential greenfield sites would be undertaken in the Local Plan Part 2 Allocations. However, the lack of a 5 year housing land supply brings added urgency to the need to release greenfield sites and effectively takes decisions of principle away from the plan led system and purely into the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as the NPPF sets out at paragraph 14.
Page 54
The Interim Housing Policy Statement In recognising the reliance on the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development, the Council has adopted interim supplementary guidance ("Interim Housing Policy Statement”) referred to as the IHPS.
The IHPS establishes a list of criteria and considerations to be applied in determining applications for sites outside settlement policy boundaries relative to sustainability considerations in East Hampshire. A primary sustainable development principle in East Hampshire is the settlement hierarchy. This categorises settlements as market towns; large local service centres; small local service centres and other settlements with a settlement policy boundary. These categories relate to the level of facilities and services that are readily accessible. The IHPS takes forward the sustainability principles of the settlement hierarchy and is only supportive of sites that are immediately adjacent or contiguous to existing local plan settlement policy boundaries. This would ensure that planning is based on sound sustainability principles, whilst containing sprawl and maintaining compact urban envelopes.
The IHPS is not intended to replace or frustrate any part of the plan-making process, but to guide development in its absence and to speed up the delivery of housing within the district. IHPS criteria closely reflect the sustainable development aims and objectives in the NPPF and in the adopted JCS with some additional local criteria which reflect the interim status / purpose of the policy. The IHPS includes a distinction between the housing allocation numbers within key settlements in the JCS; the IHPS does not include the word ‘minimum. This is because the IHPS is a short term interim position. The Council considers it would be most sustainable to manage the amount of development in each of the target settlements over the 1-2 year period, whilst the Council does not have a five year supply of housing and a Part 2 Local Plan: allocation. To permit all the JCS housing target for the period up to 2028 in a short period is not a sustainable approach to development.
Applications will need to comply with any remaining saved policies in the Local Plan: Second Review, where applicable (Criterion 1). The intention of the IHPS is to manage development outside settlement policy boundaries so that it is not allowed in the wrong locations nor inappropriate in scale or density relative to the size, role and character of the settlement in question (Criterion 2). Criteria also (3, 4) seek to conserve townscape and landscape character, and secure adequate assessment for sites near to European protected species designations (5, 6), and support developments with safe and accessible environments (7). The policy seeks to secure a housing mix that is targeted to the local housing needs and that includes upwards of 40% affordable housing (8, 9). Concurrently, development is expected to make comprehensive and effective use of available land, with appropriate density, helping to control the amount of greenfield land likely to be development and contain the geographic size of settlements (10, 11). Criteria 12, 13 are concerned with the deliverability of sites and developments coming forward under this policy. These require that development, individually or cumulatively should not be constrained by the need for significant unplanned / funded off-site infrastructure; that there is evidence of deliverability and viability, having regard to necessary contributions towards infrastructure and affordable housing, and that the intention to develop is demonstrated by the applicant.
Page 55
Criterion 13 sets out that any planning permission granted under the IHPS would need to commence within 2 years and this will be subject to a planning condition to maximise the likelihood of delivery of housing within the district in the short term. Here, it is important to reflect on the IHPS’ purpose which is clarified in the supporting text at Paragraph 5.2;
“The Council wants new homes delivered in the right places to meet the needs of the District... the emphasis will be on sites being put forward under this Interim Policy Statement approach being deliverable at the time that they are put forward. Therefore detailed applications would be preferred and be accompanied by evidence of deliverability. They should not, for example, be dependent upon delivery of significant off-site infrastructure; and should be fully in the applicant’s control. Those proposing development of a site are therefore encouraged to demonstrate a strong desire and willingness to develop it in the short term, with the necessary evidence to back up such statements.”
Local Interim Planning Statement The Council is undertaking public consultation events in the main settlements to seek views on sustainability issues affecting that settlement and which housing development sites might best meet local housing needs and place shaping aspirations. The LIPS have two purposes. They provide a local supplement to the district wide IHPS referred to above. Additionally, the LIPS are an initial options consultation under Regulation 18 of the Planning Regulations, the results of which will feed into the Part 2 Local Plan: Allocations.
As such events are an initial step in the Part 2 Local Plan Allocations work, for which there is no regulatory format to follow, they are valuable snapshots of community input. The progress on the Part 2 Local Plan will build on this, together with future community consultation events and use the up-to-date evidence that exists for the JCS e.g. transport capacity, Sustainability Appraisal, Green Infrastructure Strategy, housing needs, environmental assets etc. The LIPS consultations are a material consideration in the determination of planning applications but, as they are not statutory planning documents, carry limited weight in the determination of a planning application.
Binsted was included in the public consultation on July 2nd in the Alton Assembly Rooms and whilst the results of the exercise are due to be published shortly, early feedback from the consultation confirms that just 2 of the 19 votes cast for SHLAA sites in Binsted selected the application site as the preferred site for additional housing.
The Draft Employment and Housing Allocation Plan was submitted to the Council's Cabinet on 6 November and will go onto Council on 4th December 2014, seeking agreement to undertake a six week consultation exercise on the sites put forward. This document, in due course, will form part of the statutory Development Plan for East Hampshire District. Its primary purpose is to allocate green field land for development for housing and employment and to set out guidance for the development of these sites.
This is the first formal stage of the allocations plan and therefore carries very little weight in the consideration of planning application. However, if the Planning Committee, or indeed any subsequent appeal inspector, were to proportion more weight to the document (as time moves on), then it is worth highlighting that the draft document does include the application site as a potential site to accommodate housing. However, the draft guidance
Page 56 makes it clear that the site could cater for about 8 dwellings, which would need to be set out in a linear form to reflect the characteristics of the village. Housing supply considerations In spite of recent consents, there remains a shortfall in housing supply for the district. The requirement for maintaining a 5-year supply (plus buffer) is a rolling target which is imposed on councils through central government policy. The spatial strategy set out by the JCS and reflected in the IHPS is to distribute new housing throughout the key settlements within the district outside of the SDNP. The amount of housing is based on the identified settlement hierarchy as follows:
Alton – 700 new homes Horndean - 700 new homes Clanfield – 200 new homes Liphook – 175 new homes Four Marks/South Medstead - 175 new homes Rowlands Castle - 150 new homes Other villages outside the South Downs National Park – 150 new homes
This strategy focuses the majority of new housing to Alton, Horndean and Clanfield. Holt Pound, which falls under the 'Other villages outside the South Downs National Park', is identified in the JCS as a Level 4 settlement intended to accommodate a proportionate amount of housing. The JCS observes of this scale of settlement that they:
‘have a limited range of local services and may be appropriate for some further small scale local development’
Thus far, planning permissions have been granted for a potential total of 26 dwellings under the IHPS in other villages outside the SDNP. In addition, at their meeting on 28 October this year, the Council's Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission for a further 37 dwellings at Hole Lane in Bentley, subject to the completion of a legal agreement. Therefore, once the legal agreement is in place, 63 dwellings will have been granted planning permission.
This proposal of 17 dwellings would result in a total of 80 dwellings approved and, therefore, would not satisfy the total housing requirement over the plan period of 150 (combined) for other villages that have a settlement policy boundary. In addition to this application, there are other applications submitted for Medstead, Ropley, Bucks Horn Oak and another in Holt Pound (also on the agenda); all of which were submitted sometime after this application and are currently awaiting determination.
Setting aside the other matters covered by this report, the site does not seem to have any overriding environmental constraints. If permission were to be granted, it would bring development forward faster than awaiting the allocation of sites through the next stage of the local plan. Some weight, therefore, arises in favour of the scheme in relation to the timing of the delivery of new housing locally. Subject to off-site works and infrastructure, which this report considers, there are no other reasons to suspect the scheme could not be implemented within a 2 year timeframe. This would contribute towards goals in the IHPS and NPPF, raising the weight which can be attributed to this positive principle benefit of the scheme.
Page 57
There are notable benefits of securing further affordable housing provision to meet identified local needs. In this respect the Housing Officer is supportive, in principle and points to present levels of need. However, as the scheme would do no more than comply with the policies in the JCS on the provision of affordable housing, the respective contribution does not add significant weight to arguments relating to housing need generally. The scheme provides for 40% affordable units, which the IHPS seeks as a minimum level.
Overall, the scheme would make a small contribution to housing supply requirements and towards addressing the shortfall within the district. Addressing this shortfall and the contribution this site would make towards doing so, should be afforded some weight in this decision.
Local housing needs There is an outstanding need for affordable housing within the parish of Binsted. As identified by the Affordable Housing Officer, housing need fluctuates constantly as peoples' circumstances change or they are housed. The local housing need for rented accommodation for the Binsted parish, at the time the application was made, was for 277 dwellings. Of these, the housing need for those with a local connection currently stands at five applicants.
In addition to the housing need for rented accommodation, there are a further five households registered with the Help to Buy agent requiring intermediate housing in Binsted.
2. Principle of development
As mentioned earlier, the development must have regard to the NPPF. In the absence of a five year housing land supply, neither the recently adopted Joint Core Strategy nor the saved policies of the local plan can be relied upon in determining the principle of development for applications for housing. Instead, as with similar recent applications, it should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as the NPPF sets out at paragraph 14, which confirms that where decisions are to be taken and the relevant policies of the development plan are out-of-date permission should be granted unless:
- Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or - Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
As there are no specific policies in the NPPF to indicate that such development should necessarily be restricted, the first point is perhaps the most pertinent. The recognised benefits of the proposal include the provision of housing, both market and affordable, for which there is an identified need. These are clear economic and social benefits. For permission to be refused, the adverse impacts of the development need to significantly and demonstrably outweigh these benefits. Quite apart from the consideration of any adverse impact being caused to local character, ecology, flood risk and transport, which
Page 58 will be considered later in the report, there are three preliminary issues to assess in determining the principle of development. i) the adopted housing figure for Holt Pound; (as part of the figure for other villages outside of the National Park) ii) is the proposal sustainable development? e.g. locational suitability, impact on economic, environmental and social factors; and iii) consideration of alternative sites i) The adopted housing figure for Holt Pound (as part of the figure for other villages outside of the National Park) It should not be ignored that in meeting the district wide housing need up to 2028, the identified housing distribution for other villages outside the South Downs National Park is 150 new homes. This figure is set out in the spatial strategy of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) and reflected in the IHPS. This amount of housing is based on, and proportionate to, the identified settlement hierarchy set out in the JCS. Holt Pound is identified as constituting a Level 4 settlement - a rural village with a settlement policy boundary. Level 4 villages provide a limited range of local services and may be appropriate for limited local development. These villages have been defined previously through Local Plans as 'built- up' areas primarily because of the nature and extent of built development, which suggests potential for some further small scale development within them, provided it is consistent with maintaining and enhancing their character.
The adoption of the JCS in May this year followed a Local Plan Inspector's thorough testing of the housing figures for soundness. Consequently, the distribution of housing numbers for each settlement carries significant weight in the determination of a planning application for residential development under the IHPS.
Whilst the JCS establishes the settlement distributions as minimums, the IHPS establishes them as maximums for the very reason that the IHPS purpose is to provide a five year land supply within a short period of time (approximately two years).
In the case of Holt Pound, no other permissions have been granted. The total number of dwellings granted/resolved to be granted in the other villages outside the National Park is 63 (out of the 150 for the whole plan period). ii) Locational suitability The Holt Pound Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) adjoins the site to the east. Whilst the site would not adjoin the northern boundary of the SPB (which runs along the other side of Fullers Road), the site is broadly in accordance with the requirements of the IHPS.
Holt Pound is a small village settlement which soon crosses the county border and merges into Rowledge, a slightly larger village where local facilities include; a primary school, recreation ground, post office, butcher, newsagent, hairdresser, garage, a village hall, a couple of churches and two pubs. These are within 1000 metres of the application site (approx). The Forest Inn PH on the A325 is closer to the application site up the hill to the north. Whilst the site is some distance from the limited range of shops and services in Rowledge, the intervening distance is not considered to be too significant to make the site unacceptably remote in locational terms.
As the NPPF states, the purpose of planning is to contribute to the achievement of
Page 59 sustainable development and that sustainable development is about positive growth - making economic, environmental and social progress for this and future generations. In this context, the proposal would bring social benefits through the provision of housing (market and affordable) and likely contributions towards recreational open space, transportation improvements and community facilities. The proposal would play an economic role by allowing an appropriate edge of village location to support growth and the necessary provision of infrastructure. In terms of the environmental pillar of sustainable development, it is noted that the development would impact on the character of the land, but whether this would be in an adverse manner will be assessed later in the report.
Third-party representations have raised the question as to whether a development of 17 dwellings is appropriate in scale, having regard to the size of Holt Pound and the overall JCS requirement for a minimum of 150 dwellings across all the 4th tier settlements across the district (excluding the SDNP). Whether the figure of 17 new dwellings is appropriate to Holt Pound current size is certainly a valid point to consider. In fact, the IHPS states that the scale of development proposed should be appropriate to the size, character and role of the settlement and also states that, in deciding this, account will be taken of the cumulative impact of extant unimplemented permissions for the settlement concerned.
As a settlement, Holt Pound has in the region of 100 dwellings laid out in an established linear pattern fronting Fullers Road and some dwellings fronting the main A325. The provision of a further 17 dwellings (17% extra) would not be an insignificant number. However, whether the scale of the development would unduly affect the settlement's size, character and role depends upon the layout, density and form of the proposal and this will be discussed later in the report (under character of the area). iii) Consideration of alternative sites Objectors believe that alternative sites should be pursued rather than this one. The IHPS echoes the strategy to be pursued by the Joint Core Strategy which will, in any event, seek to allocate (predominantly greenfield) land to secure housing targets. However, each case must be assessed on its merits and, for the purposes of the NPPF and development plan, there is no sequential assessment requirement for housing sites when determining planning applications.
Notwithstanding other sites in the area may be preferential in one or other respects, it falls to the Council to determine this application on its individual merits, having regard to all material considerations.
In line with the NPPF, if a scheme is considered to represent sustainable development, it should be approved. There is no requirement for an applicant to demonstrate theirs is the most sustainable location for development. In this case, in the opinion of officers, while there is an absence of a 5 year housing land supply and an identified plan period need for 150 dwellings in ‘other villages with a SPB’ as set out in the adopted JCS, there is no sound basis on which to refuse the application on the grounds that there are other alternatives which may or may not be more sustainable.
3. Deliverability
While the NPPF requires LPAs to maintain a five year supply of housing sites (plus an
Page 60 additional buffer) it clarifies that:
“To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans.”
Nonetheless, paragraph 5.2 of the IHPS states that “The Council wants new homes delivered in the right places to meet the needs of the district, the emphasis will be on sites being put forward under this Interim Policy Statement approach being deliverable at the time that they are put forward. Therefore detailed applications would be preferred and be accompanied by evidence of deliverability.
The key issue, in this case, is not whether the development would require any off-site works in respect of drainage or highway improvements, but whether those works would be significant and accordingly might delay the implementation of the development. If so, this would be counter-productive to the goals of the IHPS of speeding up housing delivery, particularly if similar improvements may not apply to other sites coming forward. If there are no evident barriers to the development coming forward within the time period sought by the IHPS, which seeks to speed up house building by restricting the period of implementation to 2 years, there is no conflict with the IHPS’ criteria. There appear to be no significant environmental constraints on site, or significant off-site works required, that would hold up the delivery of the development.
4. Affordable housing
The affordable housing would amount to 40% of the total number of dwellings proposed and would comprise:
4 x 2 bedroomed houses 3 x 3 bedroomed houses
The Council's Housing Development Officer has stated his acceptance of this as it provides a reasonable mix of size, type and tenure to meet local needs and the needs of the district. The units would be located along the northern boundary of the site fronting Fullers Road. Two of the units would be secured as intermediate tenure and eight as affordable rent. Whilst not truly dispersed amongst the site, the Council's Housing Development Officer has acknowledged that the site is relatively small and there are few opportunities to pepper-pot the affordable units.
The provision of the affordable housing would ordinarily be secured via a legal obligation. This would secure the number of units, the size of units, tenure types and the allocation of occupation. On this latter point, the Council has a cascade approach to housing allocations, looking first at the local parish, then neighbouring East Hampshire parishes, then wider parishes and finally the district as a whole.
Page 61
5. Access and highway issues
The impact on the local highway is one of the main concerns raised by third parties against the proposal. In summary, a new pedestrian and vehicular access will be formed from Fullers Road. A new pedestrian link will be provided from the site entrance to the existing bus shelter/stop on the A325.
The applicant has used the industry standard TRICS data with which to predict the likely vehicular trips generated by this development in the morning and afternoon peak. The data shows that the development, once fully occupied, would generate 12 two way movements in the morning peak (08:00 - 09:00) and 12 trips in the afternoon peak hour (17:00 - 18:00).
The County Highway Authority (CHA) has undertaken an assessment of this data and is satisfied that an increase of one car per five minutes is not significant enough to sustain an objection on the grounds of insufficient capacity of the surrounding road network. The CHA has also considered the comments raised by third parties regarding the safety of the Fullers Road junction with the A325, which some objectors have referred to as an accident black spot. The accident data over the last five years shows there have been four reported accidents, with three of them due to cars failing to slow when other cars were slowing to turn into Fullers Road. The CHA state that statistics showing fewer than one accident per year for this section of the A325 means that it would be difficult to demonstrate a detriment to highway safety in relation to the proposed development.
However, the CHA did request that further information be submitted in order for a full assessment to be carried out. They have stated that the following matters remain outstanding:
Insufficient parking provision has been proposed with 34 spaces as opposed to the required 38 spaces to meet the adopted parking standards A Road Safety Audit to cover both the access and internal estate road is required
The applicant has submitted further information in an attempt to address these outstanding matters. It is clear that the parking provision has been resolved with 38 spaces now proposed on site. However, the County Highway Authority has not yet issued their final response in terms of the submitted Road Safety Audit. Consequently, the Council has no other option other than to uphold their original objection until a response is received. As such, from the information available, it cannot be shown that the development can be accommodated in a manner that would not cause increased danger and inconvenience to highway users. The proposal as it currently stands is contrary to policy CP31 of the Joint Core Strategy.
Should this position change between the publishing of the agenda and the planning committee meeting, this will be updated on the supplementary sheets to be circulated on the day of committee.
Page 62
6. Impact on neighbouring properties
There is one notable impact that needs to be assessed and that is the impact of the development on the residential amenity of Linden, the property immediately to the east of the application site.
Linden is an 'L' shaped bungalow whose side elevation is 4 - 5m away from the side boundary with the application site. The layout of the development shows that the pair of semi-detached houses occupying plots 1 & 2 would be sited in close proximity to the side boundary with Linden. The height of plots 1 & 2 would be 7.6m to their ridge. When this is compared with the much lower height of Linden (particularly evident from the street scene elevation drawing) it is clear there would be an abrupt transition in height within a relatively short distance from each other. In its facing west elevation, Linden has a bedroom window (the solitary window serving the room) together with a large lounge window. Whilst the distance to the side boundary is 4 - 5m, the removal of the woodland on the boundary to facilitate layout of the houses, the close proximity of plots 1 & 2 to this boundary and their significant height and bulk towering over the neighbouring bungalow, would all combine to result in a visually intrusive, overbearing and dominant feature for the occupants of Linden.
Another cause for concern is the orientation and proximity of plot 17 to the rear garden of Linden. Due to the sloping topography of the land and the limited screening exists on this boundary, concern is raised relating the first floor bedroom windows in the rear elevation of plot 17. In particular, from an assessment on-site, standing in the neighbour's rear garden and patio, there seems scope for these first floor windows 11 metres away from the boundary, to overlook the rear amenity area of Linden.
For these reasons, the development would adversely effect the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupants of Linden to an unacceptable degree. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy CP27 of the Joint Core Strategy.
7. Impact on the character of the area
A number of the objectors have raised concern regarding the impact this development would have on the established character of Holt Pound. In addition, the Council's Landscape Officer has raised concern over the impact it would have on the local landscape, and the South Downs National Park Authority has raised an objection to the impact on the setting of the South Downs National Park, which has a boundary on the opposite side of the A325. Relevant policy considerations comprise JCS policies CP2, CP10, CP20, CP29, CP30 and criteria 2, 3, 4, 11 of the IHPS.
Clearly, the proposal would represent a significant change in the nature and appearance of the land and the assessment to be made is whether the impact would be harmful to the local and wider area.
The IHPS (criterion 10) favours an approach whereby development maximises the potential of a site and schemes should make efficient use of the site. However, there is also a need for proposals to be balanced against criterion 2 and 11 of the IHPS, which require proposals to be appropriate to the size, character and role of the settlement and
Page 63 the density of housing appropriate and does not harm the established character and appearance of the area or settlement. In this context, it is necessary to identify the character and appearance of Holt Pound.
Holt Pound is a small settlement that extends from the A325 in the west to the Surrey village of Rowledge to the east. The settlement is centred along Fullers Road and the dwellings along this road, and the small number along the A325, are arranged in a strict linear form. A large number of the properties in the settlement are either bungalows or chalet style properties. The settlement contains approximately 100 dwellings.
The development would see the erection of 17 two storey houses arranged throughout the site in stark contrast to the established linear form of local plots. Consequently, the proposal bears little or no resemblance to the established character and the development does not appear to be character led - informed and sympathetic to its immediate surroundings. In addition, the two storey nature of the development and its residential density would be on perhaps the most conspicuous of all sites in Holt Pound, meaning that its dense form would not be hidden or contained within the centre of the settlement. Finally, the number of dwellings would represent a 17% increase in dwellings for the Holt Pound settlement. Whilst on its own, this may not be a reason to withhold planning permission, when considered together with the findings above, adds weight to the disproportionate nature of the proposal.
The development would not be consistent with maintaining and enhancing the character of the Holt Pound settlement, but instead would appear as a suburban development grossly at odds with the size, form and density of the settlement. The development is contrary to criteria 2 and 11 of the IHPS and policies CP2, CP10, CP29 of the JCS.
Landscape character
In terms of the impact on the landscape and the South Downs National Park, the site is located in a dip on the A325 making it a highly prominent site locally, meaning that any change to its wooded appearance would be a significant change to the street scene and landscape beyond.
The development would see the removal of the goat willow and hawthorn, opening up of the site and the resultant impact the housing development would have on the landscape setting of the South Downs National Park (SDNP) which lies immediately across the A325. The Council's Landscape Officer has raised concern that development of the road frontage on the A325 would significantly alter the green outlook from the SDNP and have an adverse impact on its setting.
The South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) has gone one step further and formally objects for the same reason. The SDNPA considers it to be essential that hard lines of housing on the Park's boundaries be avoided. The replacement planting on the western boundary, consisting of a single line of trees would not mitigate the visual impact satisfactorily.
An amended layout plan has subsequently been submitted by the applicant in an attempt to address these comments. The change now proposed is an increase in the landscape buffer on this western boundary. However, the Council's Landscape Officer comments
Page 64 that it does not show retention of any vegetation and it has, in fact, reduced the number of proposed trees on this boundary than shown previously. The comments from the SDNPA on the amended layout plan are yet to be received and these will be reported to the planning committee on the supplementary sheets. However, at the time of the writing of this report, the SDNPA's objection to the proposal remains.
It is clear that the development would open up the site to views in all directions and this would have an impact on the landscape setting of the SDNP which sits across the main road. JCS policies CP20, CP29 and CP30 all require that any development should conserve and enhance the natural beauty, tranquility, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park and its setting. For the reasons set out above, this development would not adhere to this requirement but would be contrary to the purposes of the SDNP.
As such, the proposal is also contrary to policies CP20, CP29 and CP30 of the JCS and criteria 3 and 4 of the IHPS.
8. Trees and ecology
The site contains an area of scrubby woodland throughout, mainly comprising hawthorn and goat willow of relatively poor quality. The applicant submitted an Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan and this has been assessed by the Council's Arboricultural Officer, who comments that the only tree of any real significance located within the site is an Oak, located at the site's eastern most aspect, adjacent to the shared boundary with Linden. Although it is proposed to install a footpath within this Oak's root protection area, the encroachment that would occur, according to the arboriculturalist, is negligible. It would, therefore, not be to the detriment to its long term health.
Given this and that the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement has demonstrated sufficiently how the salient trees within the site's curtilage would be protected should planning permission be granted, no arboricultural objections have been raised, subject to the imposition of a condition.
In terms of ecology, the presence of protected species is a material planning consideration which needs to be addressed prior to any permission being granted. The NPPF states the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible.
The application was accompanied by an Ecological Appraisal (ACD, June 2014) which provides a Phase 1 level assessment of the application site’s current ecological value and this has been assessed by the County Ecologist who comments:
The habitat within the site looks rather interesting – native scrub is a dwindling habitat and often supports a wide range of species
The on-site stream flows directly into the Bourne Stream, itself a tributary of the River Wey. Streams within this part of north Hampshire are generally acidic in nature (being formed mostly on sands and gravels) and thus not likely to contain any significant plant growth: in any case, no detail is given on the riparian vegetation present and the stream is essentially dismissed from the evaluation. There is no attempt to describe its characteristics or its ecological attributes. The presence of woody debris (such as fallen
Page 65 trees, branches and twigs) within the channel only serves to raise its likely ecological value, not detract from it. I consider that insufficient attention has been paid to this valuable feature and essentially no detail is provided on any potential impacts arising from this proposal. Nowhere within the application documents can I find any reference to the ecological status of this watercourse.
• Given the confirmed presence of Hazel Dormice within the landscape (a single record within Alice Holt forest, but the species is extremely likely to be widespread throughout this extensive woodland), the presence of connecting habitat (a review of an aerial image clearly shows this to be the case) and the well-structured ‘dense and continuous’ scrub habitat within the site, I do not understand why the potential presence of this European protected species has been dismissed. From a look at the photos (e.g. Photo 1, page 11) the site would appear to provide optimal dormouse habitat. The ecology report states that dormice are found within ‘dense scrub connected to woodland’, exactly the type of habitat within the application site. Therefore, the likelihood of this species occurring needs to be re-examined.
• The assessment of bat roosting potential is confusing. Initially (paragraph 4.2.3) the report states that some trees within the site may have hidden cracks and cavities, then (4.2.5) states that potential for roosting bats is negligible. There is no detail on any of the trees within the site, even those which it is considered are not suitable. Given the apparent removal of mature trees in advance of this application, it would be useful to have an ecological opinion on whether the felled trees were of interest to bats and whether the felling was supervised by a licensed bat worker where required.
• Whilst I am content to agree that the site itself is not likely to harbour large numbers of foraging bats, a review of aerial photography demonstrates that this site provides a useful link between the more extensive forested habitats to the east and west. No examination of the potential impacts to the bats’ landscape has been provided – this is pertinent as the data search revealed a significant roost of pipistrelle bats within 100m of the site: might the scrub here not act as a useful corridor or stepping-stone for bats locally? There is an odd statement that any bat foraging or commuting interest will be of value within the context of the site only – given the presence of a presumed maternity colony nearby, is the suggestion that bats would not utilise this site at all? Further clarification is required.
In response to these comments from the County Ecologist, the applicant submitted a rebuttal/additional information. At the time of writing this report for committee, the comments from the County Ecologist had not been received. Consequently, in the absence of a response to the contrary it is difficult for the Council to assess whether the development would impact on protected species and such information cannot be left to be covered by condition, as the potential harm or any necessary mitigation has not been established. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to policy CP21 of the Joint Core Strategy .
Should this position change between the publishing of the agenda and the planning committee meeting, this will be updated on the supplementary sheets to be circulated on the day of committee.
Page 66
9. Drainage
Drainage and flood risk All areas not designated as Flood Zones 2 or 3 are designated as Flood Zone 1. The application site is within Flood Zone 1 (Low Probability). This zone comprises land assessed as having a less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of river or sea flooding in any year (<0.1per cent). However, for development proposals on sites of one hectare (or above), the vulnerability to flooding from other sources as well as from river and sea flooding, and the potential to increase flood risk elsewhere through the addition of hard surfaces and the effect of the new development on surface water run-off, should be incorporated in a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). As this site is less than 1ha, the applicant has instead submitted a drainage statement and drainage and utilities investigation report.
Due to the geology of the site, full infiltration is not viable so the drainage strategy makes provision for the surface water to be positively drained. In this context, the surface water will be connected to the existing surface water sewer ditch located along the southern boundary of the site. The surface water disposal will be restricted greenfield run-off rates. Water from an extreme storm event up to a 1 in 100 year storm with 30% allowance for climate change will be stored/attenuated on site. Water butts will be provided for each dwelling to reduce surface water run-off and permeable systems will be used for the driveways and parking areas which will partially drain into the surface water system.
The Council's drainage consultant has assessed the submitted information and raises no objection. However, the schematic drainage layout provided will require more detailed design, together with a detailed maintenance and management plan for the surface water drainage system, including the ditch. This can be controlled by conditions.
Foul water The foul drainage strategy proposes to flow by gravity to the existing public foul water manhole located within the site boundary subject to the agreement of Thames Water. Thames Water has not raised an objection to the development.
Therefore, with appropriate planning conditions imposed and subsequent details assessed for their suitability, the development would not exacerbate existing drainage problems or increase flood risk locally. As such, the proposal in this regard accords with JCS policy CP25.
10. Energy conservation
Policy CP24 of the JCS requires new development to promote the conservation of energy by seeking the highest practicable degree of energy efficiency. In this instance, on completion, the dwelling should meet at least level 4 Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) threshold and must provide at least 10% of energy demand from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy sources. A sustainability and energy report has been submitted to support this application. It concludes that all dwellings will achieve level 4 CSH through a reduction in energy demand and that at least 10% of the energy will be garnered through photovoltaic panels on each dwelling.
Page 67
Details would ordinarily be sought through a condition if this application was being supported.
11. Developer contributions
The three tests as set out in Regulation 122(2) require S.106 agreements to be:
(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
As the application proposes the provision of 17 additional residential units, in order for the development to be acceptable in planning terms, a S.106 agreement is required to secure the following contributions:
• £23,340 - Community facilities in accordance with Policy CP32 of the JCS • £23,216 - Recreational open space provision in accordance with policy CP18 of the JCS • £70,513 - Transportation improvements in accordance with policies CP31 of the JCS and T2 of the Local Plan • Securing the affordable housing element in accordance with policy CP13 of the JCS • 5% admin and monitoring fee in accordance with the Council's 'Guide to Developer Contributions' 2014
The County Council has confirmed that they will not be seeking a contribution towards the expansion of the primary school in Rowledge.
The above contributions would need to be secured by a legal obligation under S106 of the 1990 Planning Act. No such obligation has been progressed and so an objection is raised due to the conflict with policies CP13, CP18, CP31 and CP32 of the JCS and policy T2 of the Local Plan and the Council's 'Guide to Developer Contributions' 2014.
Response to Parish/Town Council Comments
The comments raised by Binsted Parish Council are noted and, where applicable, have been carefully considered in this report.
Conclusion
The NPPF advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Any adverse impacts of the proposal would need to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits for permission to be refused.
In terms of benefits, it is acknowledged that the proposal will provide more dwellings in the district to boost housing supply and contribute towards addressing the deficit in the Council's five year housing land supply. Furthermore, 40 per cent of these units will be affordable, and these will be provided in a mix of unit sizes to help meet the need for family
Page 68 housing in the parish of Binsted.
The other contributions to be sought under a S106 legal agreement arising from the needs directly generated by this development would be towards, highway improvements, local community facilities and improving recreational open space. These are all positive benefits that will result from the development. However, the S106 legal agreement has not been completed.
In terms of the harmful impacts of the development, regard is had to the density, form and scale of the development, none of which would be in keeping with the established character of the local area. The application fails to demonstrate that the development would take account of the setting of the landscape character and, in particular, the impact on the South Downs National Park. In addition, the development would have an adverse impact on the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring property of 'Linden'. Other harm is caused to the ecological interests of the land and the impact on highway safety, neither of which have been resolved.
The benefits of housing provision (including affordable dwellings) in meeting the district wide shortfall are clearly outweighed by the adverse impacts identified in this report.
RECOMMENDATION
REFUSAL for the following reasons:
1 The proposed development, by virtue of its density, form and scale, would represent a suburban form of development that would be completely at odds with the established character and appearance of the settlement. The layout and design of the development would not contribute to local distinctiveness and would neither be appropriate nor sympathetic to its surroundings. Instead the development would unduly harm the established local character. As such, the development is contrary to policies CP2, CP10, CP29 of the Joint Core Strategy and the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement and NPPF.
2 The proposed development, by virtue of the position of the buildings and insufficient landscape planting/retention, would open up the site and introduce a dominant line of built form in close proximity to the South Downs National Park which lies across the main road (A325). This would significantly alter the green outlook from the Park and have an adverse impact on its setting. As such, the development is contrary to policies CP20, CP29 and CP30 of the Joint Core Strategy, the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement and the NPPF (Chapter 11).
3 The proposed development, by virtue of the scale and close proximity plot 1 to the existing bungalow of 'Linden' to the west, would result in a visually intrusive and dominant outlook that would have an unacceptable overbearing impact on this property. Furthermore, the close proximity of plot 17 to the side boundary with 'Linden' and the insufficient landscape planting/retention on the boundary, would result in harmful overlooking
Page 69 from first floor bedroom windows into the rear garden and patio area of this neighbouring property. As such, the development is contrary to policy CP27 of the Joint Core Strategy.
4 The proposal fails to show that significant harm would not be caused to protected species known to be present in the locality, contrary to policy CP21 of the East Hampshire District Joint Core Strategy 2014.
5 From the information available it cannot be shown that the development can be accommodated in a manner that would not cause increased danger and inconvenience to highway users. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Policy CP31 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy.
6 No provision has been made towards integrated transportation measures, community facilities or recreational open space with the proposal, contrary to policies CP18, CP31 and CP32 of the Joint Core Strategy and the Council's 'Guide to Developers' Contributions and Other Planning Requirements', and policy T2 of the Local Plan Second Review.
7 Without a Section 106 legal agreement or unilateral undertaking from the applicant agreeing to the following additional provisions (set out in full in the officers report) an objection is raised in accordance with policy CP13, CP18 and CP32 of the Joint Core Strategy and the Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014:
• Securing at least 40% affordable housing provision on site • Five per cent contribution towards administration and monitoring fee • Site management of landscaping and open spaces • Drainage management and maintenance
Informative Notes to Applicant:
1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach and works with applicants/agents on development proposals in a manner focused on solutions by:
• offering a pre-application advice service,
• updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,
• by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter.
Page 70
In this instance, the applicant was provided with pre-application advice and has been updated of issues after the initial site visit and during the course of the application, including a meeting held between the parties on 03/11/14.
CASE OFFICER: Nick Upton 01730 234232 ———————————————————————————————————————
Page 71
SECTION 1 Item 2 Land West of Linden, Fullers Road, Rowledge, Farnham
Proposed site plan
Page 72
Page 73
Item No.: 03 The information, recommendations, and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.
PROPOSAL 7 new dwellings including new access, carport and parking. (Amended drawing received 21/10/2014) LOCATION: Land west of Wood End, Fullers Road, Rowledge, Farnham, GU10 4DF REFERENCE : 38108/008 PARISH:Binsted APPLICANT: Nigel Rose Architects CONSULTATION EXPIRY : 03 October 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY : 23 October 2014 COUNCILLOR: Cllr K Carter SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL
This application is included on the agenda as it is a departure from the adopted Local Plan and is being considered under the Interim Housing Policy Statement.
Site and Development
The site is a field located between Wood End and Stream Cottage in Holt Pound. It is outside the Settlement Policy Boundary but adjacent to it. The site has mature trees on its boundaries but is otherwise an open field except for an oak in what would be in the rear garden of plot 6. The site slopes down to the north and west and a stream runs to the north and west of the site.
In 2003 outline permission was refused for one dwelling on this site. Permission was refused in 2010 for the commercial use of the site.
The pattern of development in the area is loose-knit and is characterised by ribbon development fronting onto Fullers Road.
This application is for seven dwellings on the site, to be considered under the Council's Interim Housing Policy.
Three of the dwellings would be 2 bedroom affordable units in a terrace, two would be 3 bedroom market dwellings in a pair of semi-detached houses and two would detached 5 bedroomed houses. The two larger dwellings would be to the rear of the site, with the smaller ones fronting onto Fullers Road.
Access would be from Fullers Road.
Page 74 During the course of consideration of the application an amended drawing has been received to attempt to address highways objections. Relevant Planning History
38108 - Outline dwelling with associated access 12/05/2003 Refused
38108/001- Formation of vehicular access 16/09/2005 Permission
38108/005 - Timber storage shed for agricultural use 06/09/2006 Permission
38108/007 - Change of use from agricultural to commercial use for the storage of building materials 27/10/2010 Refused
Development Plan Policies and Proposals
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014)
CP1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development CP2 - Spatial Strategy CP10 - Spatial strategy for housing CP11 - Housing tenure, type and mix CP13 - Affordable housing on residential development sites CP14 - Affordable housing for rural communities CP18 - Provision of open space, sport and recreation and built facilities CP19 - Development in the countryside CP20 - Landscape CP27 - Pollution CP21 - Biodiversity CP24 - Sustainable construction CP25 - Flood Risk CP26 - Water resources/ water quality CP29 - Design CP31 - Transport CP32 - Infrastructure
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (2006)
T2 - Public Transport Provision and Improvement T3 - Pedestrians and Cyclists H14 - Other Housing Outside Settlement Policy Boundaries
Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The NPPF was published in March 2012 and came into force with immediate effect. At the heart of it is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It states that the development plan is the starting point for consideration of planning applications, and planning applications must be determined in accordance with it, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Page 75
The NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.” (paragraph 49). Housing supply is addressed later in this report.
Binsted Parish Plan 2010
Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments
County Archaeologist - There is little archaeology recorded in the immediate vicinity. Although the Roman pottery kilns are recorded to the south at Alice Holt there is no current suggestion that they extend north as far as this area. I would not raise any archaeological issues.
Drainage Consultant - The majority of the site is located in flood zone 1 (low probability of flooding), except for an area on the northwest boundary which is in flood zone 3. A Level 1 FRA has been submitted, indicating that no development will take place in flood zone 3, which will remain as private garden.
The proposed development will dramatically increase surface water run-off, which must be controlled on site and not increase flood risk elsewhere. The FRA indicates that infiltration techniques will not be possible and that run-off will be attenuated on site to greenfield rates. The options then proposed are controlled discharge to either the adjacent watercourse or the surface water drainage system. The adjacent watercourse appears to be in private land, therefore any pipework will require an easement from the landowner and formal discharge consent from EA. I am not aware of any public surface water sewer at this location.
Under the circumstances it is not clear that the applicant can provide a satisfactory surface water drainage system and I must object pending the receipt of further information.
Environment Agency - We OBJECT to the above development proposal on the grounds of an inadequate FRA.
We have reviewed the FRA proforma and topographical survey submitted and are not satisfied that all the plots of the site are in Flood Zone 1.
Plot 7 is located very near the modelled flood extents. The applicant states that the garden will be in Flood Zone 3, but has not demonstrated that the building itself is outside Flood Zone 3.
We have compared our modelled flood levels, which are measured in mAOD, and the OS contour levels we have and these do not seem to correlate with the topographical survey that the applicant has provided of the ground levels on their site. There is also no indication on their topographical survey regarding what datum has been used.
The applicant will need to submit a plan that plots the extent of the flood zones on the site
Page 76 in order for us to be satisfied that Plot 7 is entirely within Flood Zone 1. Until this is submitted we object to the proposal on the basis of an inadequate FRA. Landscape officer - No landscape objection to infill housing along Fullers Road. However, the northern half of the site is steeply sloping down to the stream in the valley below, which is crossed by the public footpath that leads down from Fullers Road, adjacent to Wood End, two houses along from this site. Housing in the northern half of the site would intrude into the Alice Holt mixed farmland and woodland landscape character area and construction may also cause erosion on the steep slope, leading down to the stream.
Housing officer - This application proposes the inclusion of 3 affordable dwellings which exceeds the 40% requirement of the Interim Housing Policy Statement and CP13 of the JCS, by providing 43% affordable housing.
No housing need information for Rowledge is held by the Council, however there is data available for the parish of Binsted. The housing need figures, for rented accommodation in Binsted are as follows (figures taken from Hampshire Homechoice Register):
1 bed: 156 2 bed: 79 3 bed: 44 4 bed: 5 Total: 284
Included within these figures are applicants who have a local connection with the parish (live, work or have family there). The JCS policy CP13 and IHPS require affordable housing to be occupied by local households. However, a cascade to the wider EHDC District is also required to ensure that private funding can be secured to procure the affordable homes. The numbers of applicants with this local connection are currently:
1 bed: 1 2 bed: 5 3 bed: 0 4 bed: 0 Total: 6
In addition to the housing need for rented accommodation there are a further 7 households registered with the Help to Buy Agent requiring intermediate housing in Binsted.
The mix of affordable housing mix is not detailed in the application documents. I would recommend that the 3 No. two bedroom houses form the affordable element, all of which should be for affordable rent.
The site is small and so I consider it acceptable to provide the 3 affordable homes together in one cluster, which would comply with 6.36 of CP.13.
The Design and Quality of the affordable homes should be to HCA standards to ensure eligibility for grant, if available. The affordable homes and affordable land should be transferred to a Registered Provider with appropriate triggers for the delivery of the affordable homes secured in a suitable legal agreement.
Page 77 The application is supported, subject to the recommendations and comments of this response. Contaminated land officer - The desktop study (Ref.14-265.01), dated August 2014 relating to potential contamination issues at the above site has been reviewed and I have the following comments to make regarding its content:
The content of the report satisfactorily addresses requirements for submission of desktop study reports to EHDC.
The preliminary risk assessment has identified potential contaminants of concern. An intrusive site investigation is therefore required to be undertaken and which needs to assess the potential pollutant linkages identified in the preliminary conceptual site model of the desktop study.
I would strongly advise that to avoid potential requirements for additional site visits for the purpose of further sampling, the contractor contacts me to discuss the proposed sampling strategy.
Site investigations are to be in accordance with best practice as outlined in BS10175:2011. Soil sampling should be detailed enough to characterise potential contamination at both surface and at depth where risks have been identified to receptors. Gas monitoring is to be in accordance with best practice as outlined in CIRIA C665 and BS8576:2013.
As a development sensitive to contamination and given the findings of the desktop study, conditions are recommended to be attached to the planning decision notice.
Highways Comments - Fullers Road is a "C" class road which is subject to a 30 mph speed limit. The site is on the north side of the road and there are currently no pedestrian facilities across the frontage of the site.
I note the red line indicating the front boundary of the site varies between drawings and confirmation of the site boundary is required to determine that the applicant has direct access to the public highway and that third party land is not involved. It would be advisable for the applicant to have a highways status check carried out to determine the limits of the public highway.
The access point shown on Drawing No. P.01 rev.A appears to fall within the limits shown on Drawing No. 4423/002 for the required visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 43 Metres to be achieved. The visibility splays shown on the drawing do not however measure the written figures.
To achieve the required splays requires the inclusion of a section of land fronting Stream Cottage. Although Drawing No. 4423/002 states the applicants has rights over the required land it is not currently included within the application site and therefore cannot be conditioned.
The access to the site is shown as a radius kerb entrance which is unacceptable for a private drive. The access should be amended to shown a dropped kerb crossing. The existing field access to the site will need to be stopped up and abandoned.
Page 78
I note that a footway has been shown connecting the existing footway to the west of the site with the entrance of the site. This footway should be extended to include the full site frontage and will be required to be covered by a Section 278 agreement.
I find that there is no floor plans available for view of several units including plots 6 and 7 where it appears there may be integral garages. As a result I cannot determine if the garages are of sufficient size to include the required secure cycle storage or that the requirement for three car parking spaces each is met. No secure cycle storage has been indicated for the remaining plots and none is listed in section 10 of the application form. This could be in the form of sheds in the rear gardens but will need to be shown.
If the above can be overcome there will be a requirement for a contribution in line with Hampshire County Council's Transport Contributions Policy. This is based on the additional number of multi-modal trips generated by the development. In this instance this amounts to £29,639.
Further details of the contribution will be provided on submission of a satisfactory development.
Reasons for refusal are recommended.
Schools Organisation Officer - As the number of dwellings is below the threshold at which I would seek a contribution I will not be seeking a contribution from this development towards education facilities.
Natural England - The application site is within or in close proximity to a European designated site (also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect its interest features.
European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’). The application site is in close proximity to the Thursley, Hankley and Frensham Commons Special Protection Area (SPA) and Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which are European sites. The sites are also notified at a national level as Thursley, Hankley and Frensham Commons Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Please see the subsequent sections of this letter for our advice relating to SSSI features.
In considering the European site interest, Natural England advises that you, as a competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, should have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have. 1. The Conservation objectives for each European site explain how the site should be restored and/or maintained and may be helpful in assessing what, if any, potential impacts a plan or project may have.
Internationally designated sites No objection. The consultation documents provided by your authority do not include information to demonstrate that the requirements of Regulations 61 and 62 of the Habitats Regulations have been considered by your
Page 79 authority, ie the consultation does not include a Habitats Regulations Assessment.
In advising your authority on the requirements relating to Habitats Regulations Assessment, and to assist you in screening for the likelihood of significant effects, based on the information provided, Natural England offers the following advice: the proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment .
Nationally designated sites No objection – no conditions requested This application is in close proximity to Thursley, Hankley and Frensham Commons SSSI. Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England.
Protected species We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species. Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. The Standing Advice includes a habitat decision tree which provides advice to planners on deciding if there is a ‘reasonable likelihood’ of protected species being present. It also provides detailed advice on the protected species most often affected by development, including flow charts for individual species to enable an assessment to be made of a protected species survey and mitigation strategy. You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation. The Standing Advice should not be treated as giving any indication or providing any assurance in respect of European Protected Species (EPS) that the proposed development is unlikely to affect the EPS present on the site; nor should it be interpreted as meaning that Natural England has reached any views as to whether a licence may be granted. If you have any specific questions on aspects that are not covered by our Standing Advice for European Protected Species or have difficulty in applying it to this application please contact us at with details at [email protected] .
Biodiversity enhancements This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the NPPF.
County Ecologist - In summary, further clarification is required in terms of ecological impacts.
Page 80 This application is accompanied by and Ecological Appraisal report (Green Earth, December 2013) which provides a basic assessment of the likely ecological constraints at the site. It is clear that Green earth is a primarily arboricultural consultant, as the ecological report generally lacks the detail expected. For instance, the data search is restricted to the use of the free online National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway which, although useful as a first indication of e.g. the location of statutory designated sites, is not suitable as a tool for use in ecology reports for planning. The NBN Gateway Terms & Conditions state that the data is for private use only and should not be used for commercial gain without first obtaining written permission from the relevant data providers. Much of the data held on the Gateway for Hampshire has been provided by Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC) and some of its partner organisations at a lower resolution and at least a year out of date due to the time it takes to get the data onto the Gateway. To get the latest data at full resolution requesters are signposted to HBIC. An ecology report using NBN Gateway only data is also at risk of non-compliance with the NPPF (Para 165) as the Gateway does not hold the most up-to-date, comprehensive or highest resolution information on protected and notable species. Any planning application supported by an ecology report which contains only NBN data should not be validated with the exception of minor planning applications where it has been agreed with the planning authority that no data search is required. I doubt that this is the case here.
This issue aside, the application site comprises a field of semi-natural grassland surrounded by hedging and mature woody vegetation. The composition of the grassland is not described especially well (is it improved/semi-improved?) and there is no indication of its ecological value. The site walkover survey was also carried out during November and so it is unlikely to have picked up the majority of herbaceous species.
The site is bordered to the south by a hawthorn-dominated hedgerow and much of the remaining boundaries are adjacent to mature woodland and trees. Given the proposed site layout includes residential gardens situated immediately adjacent to this woodland, and the loss of hedgerow habitat to the south, I would expect some assessment of the potential impacts of this. For example, residential gardens often result in the dumping of garden and other waste, unsympathetic pruning of vegetation, lighting, pressure on adjacent trees (blocking of light etc.) and the presence of (and predation by) domestic pets. Such impacts can have a significant detrimental effect on woodland habitats and the species they support. In this immediate landscape, hazel dormice are known to occur (consultation with HBIC would have assisted here) within (and indeed throughout) Alice Holt forest and so there is a high likelihood that the species could occur within any suitable woodland or hedgerow habitat locally. No mention is made of this species within the ecology report and so clarification is required.
There is no detail on the stream which is present along the northern site boundary and no information is provided on ecological protection or mitigation measures. These issues need to be addressed before this application can be determined.
NPPF and Circular 06/2005 require that planning decisions are based on full, up to date information and, in line with Natural England’s standing advice, full protected species information must be available before a decision can be made. Following this guidance, provision of this information should not be deferred as a condition of any planning permission.
Page 81 Without full information at the point of determination it is not possible for the LPA to ensure that any impacts are known and acceptable, to engage with the Habitats Regulations, and to be able to secure any necessary mitigation. In line with NPPF, Circular 06/2005 and the Natural England Standing Advice, I would recommend that this information is required prior to further consideration of this application.
Hampshire County Rights of Way Officer - Binstead Footpath no. 49 runs along the eastern boundary of the site. We have no objection to the proposal, but would ask that the applicant be made aware that :-
• All boundary features should be retained.
• There must be no surface alterations to the right of way, nor any works carried out which affect its surface, without first seeking the permission of Hampshire County Council, as Highway Authority. For the purposes of this proposal that permission would be required from this department of the County Council. To carry out any such works without this permission would constitute an offence under s131 Highways Act 1980.
• Hampshire County Council, as Highway Authority, is not obliged to provide a surface suitable for the passage of vehicles. It only has a duty to maintain a right of way to a standard commensurate with its expected normal public use.
• Nothing connected with the development or its future use should have an adverse effect on the right of way, which must remain available for public use at all times.
In addition, no builders or contractors vehicles, machinery, equipment, materials, scaffolding or anything associated with the works should be left on or near the footpath so as to obstruct, hinder or provide a hazard to walkers.
If there is likely to be an effect on the footpath in terms of dust, noise or other obstruction during the period of the works, we suggest that a Health and Safety Risk Assessment be carried out, and that if there is deemed to be a risk to users of the footpath, the applicant should contact this office directly to discuss the Temporary Closure of the footpath for the duration of the works.
Refuse and recycling - Each property will need to purchase 1 x 240 litre green wheeled refuse bin, 1 x 240 litre black wheeled recycling bin and 1 x 38 litre glass box from our contractor, Biffa. Residents will need to present their bins for collection at the entrance to the estate on Fullers Road.
Binsted Parish Council – OBJECTION
1. Parking provision does not appear sufficient to prevent highways obstruction on Fullers Road. 2. Over development for size of plot 3. Capability for dealing with surface water are not sufficient, especially with regard to previous incidences of flooding.
Page 82 Representations
Representations have been received from 64 writers, all objecting to the application.
Issues raised are: a) overdevelopment - too many dwellings proposed for this site; b) poor design of proposed buildings/out of keeping with semi-rural environment; c) inability of infrastructure in the village to cope with more development (school, highways, doctor's surgery, sewerage system); d) loss of important green area within the village; e) inadequate parking provision and concern about overflow of parking onto Fullers Road; f) conflict of access to the site with the bridleway leading to Alice Holt Forest (opposite); g) in 2003 permission for one house was refused on this site; h) out of keeping with existing pattern of development (detached dwellings fronting Fullers Road); i) site is prone to flooding - concern about impact of additional run-off; j) should build on brown field sites in preference to greenfield; k) plot is an open area that separates Holt Pound from Rowledge; l) sight lines are poor at the access; m) danger from additional traffic using the junction of Fullers Road and the A325; n) additional noise and disturbance; o) chaos would be caused during construction; p) should be considered in conjunction with other proposal for 17 dwellings; q) too high proportion of very large dwellings proposed; r) Holt Pound has no local services of its own; s) no significant local employment; t) very little provision of public transport; u) this, plus other scheme for 17 dwellings would in combination increase the number of dwellings in Fullers Road from 34 to 58 (70% increase); v) in terms of JCS Policy CP10 there is no specific need for 7 additional houses; w) harm to landscape and setting of the SDNP; x) overlooking and loss of privacy to adjoining neighbours; y) light pollution from houses and vehicle headlights; z) no community support for the proposal; aa) visibility splays cannot be achieved within land that the applicant has control over; bb) impact on house prices in the area; cc) query change in views from those of the landscape officer in 2003 to those of the current landscape officer about the principle of infilling on the frontage; dd) some support stated for a smaller development on the site's frontage.
Determining Issues
1. Development plan and material considerations 2. Principle of development 3. Deliverability 4. Affordable housing 5. Access & highway issues 6. Impact on neighbouring properties
Page 83 7. Impact on the character of the area 8. Trees and ecology 9. Drainage 10. Energy conservation 11. Archaeology 12. Developers' contributions
Planning Considerations
1. Development plan and material considerations
As required by Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, applications must be determined in line with the adopted plan for the area, unless material considerations apply. The development plan for EHDC comprises the 'saved' policies of the 2006 Local Plan: Second Review and the policies set out in the newly adopted Joint Core Strategy.
A significant material consideration is the NPPF, particularly Paragraph 49 which confirms that, whilst the local planning authority does not have a five year housing supply, relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date. East Hampshire District Council does not have a five year supply of housing.
The effect of Paragraph 49 of the NPPF is that saved Local Plan policies and JCS policies which restrict market housing development within the countryside beyond designated settlement policy boundaries (SPBs) are, therefore, not considered up-to-date. Whilst many objectors to the application point to restrictions on development outside settlement policy boundaries as sufficient grounds for resisting the application and oppose encroachment into Greenfield sites, it is not. There are two reasons for this: firstly the impact of Paragraph 49, and secondly, the Council recognises that the district’s housing requirements, as now identified in the Joint Core Strategy, is significantly larger than had previously been the case that development outside the SPBs identified in the Local Plan: Second Review, on greenfield sites will be essential to meet the new target. The identification of the essential greenfield sites would be undertaken in the Local Plan Part 2 Allocations. However, the lack of a 5 year housing land supply brings added urgency to the need to release greenfield sites and effectively, takes decisions of principle away from the plan led system and purely into the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as the NPPF sets out at Paragraph 14.
The Interim Housing Policy Statement
In recognising the reliance on the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development, the Council has adopted interim supplementary guidance (Interim Housing Policy Statement) referred to as the IHPS.
The IHPS establishes a list of criteria and considerations to be applied in determining applications for sites outside settlement policy boundaries relative to sustainability considerations in East Hampshire. A primary sustainable development principle in East Hampshire is the settlement hierarchy.
Page 84 This categorises settlements as market towns; large local service centres; small local service centres and other settlements with a settlement policy boundary. These categories relate to the level of facilities and services that are readily accessible. The IHPS takes forward the sustainability principles of the settlement hierarchy and is only supportive of sites which are immediately adjacent or contiguous to existing local plan settlement policy boundaries. This would ensure that planning is based on sound sustainability principles, whilst containing sprawl and maintaining compact urban envelopes.
The IHPS is not intended to replace or frustrate any part of the plan-making process, but to guide development in its absence and to speed up the delivery of housing within the district. IHPS criteria closely reflect the sustainable development aims and objectives in the NPPF and in the adopted JCS with some additional local criteria which reflect the interim status / purpose of the policy. The IHPS includes a distinction between the housing allocation numbers within key settlements in the JCS; the IHPS does not include the word ‘minimum. This is because the IHPS is a short term interim position. The Council considers it would be most sustainable to manage the amount of development in each of the target settlements over the 1-2 year period, whilst the Council does not have a five year supply of housing and a Part 2 Local Plan: allocation. To permit all the JCS housing target for the period up to 2028 in a short period is not a sustainable approach to development.
Applications will need to comply with any remaining saved policies in the Local Plan: Second Review, where applicable (Criterion 1). The intention of the IHPS is to manage development outside settlement policy boundaries so that it is not allowed in the wrong locations nor inappropriate in scale or density relative to the size, role and character of the settlement in question (Criterion 2). Criteria also (3, 4) seek to conserve townscape and landscape character, and secure adequate assessment for sites near to European protected species designations (5, 6), and support developments with safe and accessible environments (7). The policy seeks to secure a housing mix that is targeted to the local housing needs and that includes upwards of 40% affordable housing (8, 9). Concurrently, development is expected to make comprehensive and effective use of available land, with appropriate density, helping to control the amount of greenfield land likely to be development and contain the geographic size of settlements (10, 11). Criteria 12, 13 are concerned with the deliverability of sites and developments coming forward under this policy. These require that development, individually or cumulatively should not be constrained by the need for significant unplanned / funded off-site infrastructure; that there is evidence of deliverability and viability, having regard to necessary contributions towards infrastructure and affordable housing, and that the intention to develop is demonstrated by the applicant.
Criterion 13 sets out that any planning permission granted under the IHPS would need to commence within 2 years and this will be subject to a planning condition to maximise the likelihood of delivery of housing within the district in the short term. Here, it is important to reflect on the IHPS’ purpose which is clarified in the supporting text at Paragraph 5.2;
“The Council wants new homes delivered in the right places to meet the needs of the District... the emphasis will be on sites being put forward under this Interim Policy Statement approach being deliverable at the time that they are put forward. Therefore detailed applications would be preferred and be accompanied by evidence of deliverability.
Page 85 They should not, for example, be dependent upon delivery of significant off-site infrastructure; and should be fully in the applicant’s control. Those proposing development of a site are therefore encouraged to demonstrate a strong desire and willingness to develop it in the short term, with the necessary evidence to back up such statements.”
Local Interim Planning Statement The Council is undertaking public consultation events in the main settlements to seek views on sustainability issues affecting that settlement and which housing development sites might best meet local housing needs and place shaping aspirations. The LIPS have two purposes. They provide a local supplement to the district wide IHPS referred to above. Additionally, the LIPS are an initial options consultation under Regulation 18 of the Planning Regulations, the results of which will feed into the Part 2 Local Plan: Allocations.
As such events are an initial step in the Part 2 Local Plan Allocations work, for which there is no regulatory format to follow, they are valuable snapshots of community input. The progress on the Part 2 Local Plan will build on this, together with future community consultation events and use the up-to-date evidence that exists for the JCS e.g. transport capacity, Sustainability Appraisal, Green Infrastructure Strategy, housing needs, environmental assets etc. The LIPS consultations are a material consideration in the determination of planning applications but, as they are not statutory planning documents, carry limited weight in the determination of a planning application. Binsted was included in the public consultation on July 2nd in the Alton Assembly Rooms, however, the results are yet to be published. Early feedback from the consultation shows that just 1 of the 19 votes cast for SHLAA sites in Binsted selected the application site as the preferred site for additional housing.
The Draft Employment and Housing Allocation Plan was submitted to the Council's Cabinet on 6 November and will go onto Council on 4th December 2014, seeking agreement to undertake a six week consultation exercise on the sites put forward. This document, in due course, will form part of the statutory Development Plan for East Hampshire District. Its primary purpose is to allocate greenfield land for development for housing and employment and to set out guidance for the development of these sites.
This is the first formal stage of the allocations plan and, therefore, carries very little weight in the consideration of planning application. However, if the Planning Committee, or indeed any subsequent appeal inspector, were to proportion more weight to the document (as time moves on), then it is worth highlighting that the draft document includes the application site as a potential site to accommodate housing. However, the draft guidance makes it clear that the site could cater for about 5 dwellings, which would need to be set out in a linear form to reflect the characteristics of the village.
Housing supply considerations In spite of recent consents, there remains a shortfall in housing supply for the district. The requirement for maintaining a 5-year supply (plus buffer) is a rolling target which is imposed on councils through central government policy. The spatial strategy set out by the JCS and reflected in the IHPS is to distribute new housing throughout the key settlements within the district outside of the SDNP. The amount of housing is based on the identified settlement hierarchy as follows:
Page 86 Alton – 700 new homes Horndean - 700 new homes Clanfield – 200 new homes Liphook – 175 new homes Four Marks/South Medstead - 175 new homes Rowlands Castle - 150 new homes Other villages outside the South Downs National Park – 150 new homes
This strategy focuses the majority of new housing to Alton, Horndean and Clanfield. Holt Pound, which falls under the 'Other villages outside the South Downs National Park', is identified in the JCS as a Level 4 settlement intended to accommodate a proportionate amount of housing. The JCS observes of this scale of settlement that they:
‘have a limited range of local services and may be appropriate for some further small scale local development’
Thus far, planning permissions have been granted for a potential total of 26 dwellings under the IHPS in other villages outside the SDNP. In addition, at their meeting on 28 October this year, the Council's Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission for a further 37 dwellings at Hole Lane in Bentley, subject to the completion of a legal agreement. Therefore, once the legal agreement is in place, 63 dwellings will have been granted planning permission.
This proposal of 7 dwellings would result in a total of 70 dwellings approved and, therefore, would not satisfy the total housing requirement over the plan period of 150 (combined) for other villages that have a settlement policy boundary. In addition to this application, there are other applications submitted for Medstead, Ropley, Bucks Horn Oak and another in Holt Pound (also on the agenda); all of which were submitted sometime after this application and are currently awaiting determination.
There are environmental constraints on the site that have not been addressed by this application in relation to flooding and possible impact on protected species. Therefore, if permission were to be granted, there is no guarantee that it could be implemented faster than awaiting the allocation of sites through the next stage of the local plan.
There are notable benefits of securing further affordable housing provision to meet identified local needs. In this respect the Housing Officer is supportive, in principle and points to present levels of need. However, as the scheme would do no more than comply with the policies in the JCS on the provision of affordable housing, the respective contribution does not add significant weight to arguments relating to housing need generally. The scheme provides for 43% affordable units, whilst the IHPS seeks 40% as a minimum level.
Overall, the scheme would make a very small contribution to housing supply requirements and towards addressing the shortfall within the District. Addressing this shortfall and the contribution this site would make towards doing so, should be afforded some weight in this decision.
Page 87 Local housing needs There is an outstanding need for affordable housing within the parish of Binsted. As identified by the Affordable Housing Officer, housing need fluctuates constantly as peoples' circumstances change or they are housed. The local housing need for rented accommodation for the Binsted parish, at the time the application was made, was for 284 dwellings. Of these, the housing need for those with a local connection currently stands at twelve applicants.
In addition to the housing need for rented accommodation there are a further 7 households registered with the Help to Buy Agent requiring intermediate housing in Binsted.
2. Principle of development
As mentioned earlier, the development must have regard to the NPPF. In the absence of a five year housing land supply, neither the recently adopted Joint Core Strategy nor the saved policies of the local plan can be relied upon in determining the principle of development for applications for housing. Instead, as with similar recent applications, it should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as the NPPF sets out at paragraph 14, which confirms that where decisions are to be taken and the relevant policies of the development plan are out-of-date permission should be granted unless:
- Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or - Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
As there are no specific policies in the NPPF to indicate that such development should necessarily be restricted, the first point is perhaps the most pertinent. The recognised benefits of the proposal include the provision of housing, both market and affordable, for which there is an identified need. These are clear economic and social benefits. For permission to be refused, the adverse impacts of the development need to significantly and demonstrably outweigh these benefits. Quite apart from the consideration of any adverse impact being caused to local character, ecology, flood risk and transport, which will be considered later in the report, there are three preliminary issues to assess in determining the principle of development. i) the adopted housing figure for Holt Pound; (as part of the figure for other villages outside of the National Park) ii) is the proposal sustainable development? e.g. locational suitability, impact on economic, environmental and social factors; and iii) consideration of alternative sites i) The adopted housing figure for Holt Pound (as part of the figure for other villages outside of the National Park) It should not be ignored that in meeting the district wide housing need up to 2028, the identified housing distribution for other villages outside the South Downs National Park is 150 new homes. This figure is set out in the spatial strategy of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) and reflected in the IHPS. This amount of housing is based on, and proportionate to, the identified settlement hierarchy set out in the JCS.
Page 88 Holt Pound is identified as constituting a Level 4 settlement - a rural village with a settlement policy boundary. Level 4 villages provide a limited range of local services and may be appropriate for limited local development. These villages have been defined previously through Local Plans as 'built-up' areas primarily because of the nature and extent of built development, which suggests potential for some further small scale development within them, provided it is consistent with maintaining and enhancing their character.
The adoption of the JCS in May this year followed a Local Plan Inspector's thorough testing of the housing figures for soundness. Consequently, the distribution of housing numbers for each settlement carries significant weight in the determination of a planning application for residential development under the IHPS.
Whilst the JCS establishes the settlement distributions as minimums, the IHPS establishes them as maximums for the very reason that the IHPS purpose is to provide a five year land supply within a short period of time (approximately two years).
In the case of Holt Pound, no other permissions have been granted. The total number of dwellings granted permission in the other villages outside the National Park is 63 (out of the 150 for the whole plan period). ii) Locational suitability The Holt Pound Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) adjoins the site to the south and part of the east and west boundaries of the site. The site is broadly in accordance with the requirements of the IHPS.
Holt Pound is a small village settlement which soon crosses the county border and blends into Rowledge, a slightly larger village where local facilities include; a primary school, recreation ground, post office, butcher, newsagent, hairdresser, garage, a village hall, a couple of churches and two pubs. These are within 1000 metres of the application site (approx). The Forest Inn PH on the A325 is closer to the application site up the hill to the north. Whilst the site is some distance from the limited range of shops and services in Rowledge, the intervening distance is not considered to be too significant to make the site unacceptably remote in locational terms.
As the NPPF states, the purpose of planning is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and that sustainable development is about positive growth - making economic, environmental and social progress for this and future generations.
In this context, the proposal would bring social benefits through the provision of housing (market and affordable) and likely contributions towards recreational open space, transportation improvements and community facilities. The proposal would play an economic role by allowing an appropriate edge of village location to support growth and the necessary provision of infrastructure. In terms of the environmental pillar of sustainable development, it is noted that the development would impact on the character of the land, but whether this would be in an adverse manner will be assessed later in the report.
Page 89 Third-party representations have raised the question as to whether a development of 7 dwellings is appropriate in scale, having regard to the size of Holt Pound and the overall JCS requirement for a minimum of 150 dwellings across all the 4th tier settlements across the district (excluding the SDNP). Whether the figure of 7 new dwellings is appropriate to Holt Pound current size is certainly a valid point to consider. In fact, the IHPS states that the scale of development proposed should be appropriate to the size, character and role of the settlement and also states that, in deciding this, account will be taken of the cumulative impact of extant unimplemented permissions for the settlement concerned.
As a settlement, Holt Pound has in the region of 100 dwellings laid out in an established linear pattern fronting Fullers Road and some dwellings fronting the main A325. The provision of a further 7 dwellings (7% extra) would not be an insignificant number. However, whether the scale of the development would unduly affect the settlement's size, character and role depends upon the layout, density and form of the proposal and this will be discussed later in the report (under character of the area). iii) Consideration of alternative sites Objectors believe that alternative sites should be pursued rather than this one. The IHPS echoes the strategy to be pursued by the Joint Core Strategy which will, in any event, seek to allocate (predominantly greenfield) land to secure housing targets. However, each case must be assessed on its merits and, for the purposes of the NPPF and development plan, there is no sequential assessment requirement for housing sites when determining planning applications.
Notwithstanding other sites in the area may be preferential in one or other respects, it falls to the Council to determine this application on its individual merits, having regard to all material considerations.
In line with the NPPF, if a scheme is considered to represent sustainable development, it should be approved. There is no requirement for an applicant to demonstrate theirs is the most sustainable location for development. In this case, in the opinion of officers, while there is an absence of a 5 year housing land supply and an identified plan period need for 150 dwellings in ‘other villages with a SPB’ as set out in the adopted JCS, there is no sound basis on which to refuse the application on the grounds that there are other alternatives which may or may not be more sustainable.
3. Deliverability
While the NPPF requires LPAs to maintain a five year supply of housing sites (plus an additional buffer) it clarifies that:
“To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans.”
Page 90 Nonetheless, paragraph 5.2 of the IHPS states that “The Council wants new homes delivered in the right places to meet the needs of the district, the emphasis will be on sites being put forward under this Interim Policy Statement approach being deliverable at the time that they are put forward. Therefore detailed applications would be preferred and be accompanied by evidence of deliverability.
If there are no evident barriers to the development coming forward within the time period sought by the IHPS, which seeks to speed up house building by restricting the period of implementation to 2 years, there is no conflict with the IHPS’ criteria. There are concerns over flooding of part of the site and of the impact of run-off of water from the site and ecological issues that have not been addressed adequately, which may delay delivery. It is currently not clear whether the concerns of the Drainage Consultant can be adequately addressed.
4. Affordable housing
The affordable housing would amount to 43% of the total number of dwellings proposed and would comprises 3 x 2 bedroom houses.
The Council's Housing Development Officer has stated his acceptance of this as it provides a reasonable mix of size, type and tenure to meet local needs and the needs of the district. The units would be located along the southern boundary of the site fronting Fullers Road. Whilst not truly dispersed amongst the site, the Council's Housing Development Officer has acknowledged that the site is relatively small and there are few opportunities to pepper-pot the affordable units.
The provision of the affordable housing would ordinarily be secured via a legal obligation. This would secure the number of units, the size of units, tenure types and the allocation of occupation. On this latter point, the Council has a cascade approach to housing allocations, looking first at the local parish, then neighbouring East Hampshire parishes, then wider parishes and finally the district as a whole.
5. Access and highway issues
The impact on the local highway is one of the main concerns raised by third parties against the proposal.
The Highway Authority has considered the details provided of the access. It was noted that the red line indicating the front boundary of the site varies between drawings and confirmation of the site boundary is required to determine that the applicant has direct access to the public highway and that third party land is not involved. It has been stated that it would be advisable for the applicant to have a highways status check carried out to determine the limits of the public highway.
The access point shown on Drawing No. P.01 rev.A appears to fall within the limits shown on Drawing No. 4423/002 for the required visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 43 Metres to be achieved. The visibility splays shown on the drawing do not, however, measure the written figures.
Page 91 To achieve the required splays requires the inclusion of a section of land fronting Stream Cottage. Although Drawing No. 4423/002 states the applicants has rights over the required land, it is not currently included within the application site and, therefore, cannot be conditioned.
The access to the site is shown as a radius kerb entrance which is unacceptable for a private drive. The access should be amended to shown a dropped kerb crossing. The existing field access to the site would need to be stopped up and abandoned.
A footway has been shown connecting to the existing footway to the west of the site with the entrance of the site. This footway should be extended to include the full site frontage and would be required to be covered by a Section 278 agreement.
The applicant has submitted an amended drawing to attempt to address the highways objections and concerns. No further comments had been received from the Highway Authority at the time of writing. As such, from the information available, it cannot be shown that the development can be accommodated in a manner that would not cause increased danger and inconvenience to highway users. The proposal, as it currently stands, would be contrary to policy CP31 of the Joint Core Strategy.
Should this position change between the publishing of the agenda and the planning committee meeting, this will be updated on the supplemental sheets.
6. Impact on neighbouring properties
The five dwellings along the frontage would be situated between Wood End to the east and Stream Cottage to the west. Stream Cottage in particular has two side windows which overlook the site from first floor level. Wood End has one first floor side window facing the site. The dwellings to the side of Wood End would be orientated away from the side wall so there would be less direct impact on that property in terms of loss of light. The dwelling adjacent to Stream Cottage would be between 2.5 and 3m from that dwelling. The dwelling on plot 1 would have a landing window facing towards Wood End. This could be conditioned to be obscure glazed. The dwelling on plot 5 would not have any side windows facing Stream End, but would reduce light to its windows, particularly given the close proximity of the building.
There would also be increased noise and disturbance from the site, although the extent of this from a development of 7 houses along a busy road is not considered to be sufficient to warrant refusal of permission.
There would be some overlooking of the rear gardens of both neighbouring dwellings from the first floor front windows of the two dwellings to the rear of the site. Whilst the distances between dwellings would be almost 30m, generally acceptable in planning terms, the dwellings currently have secluded rear gardens so any overlooking of these would impact the amenity of the occupiers of these dwellings.
There are, therefore, some concerns both about loss of light to side windows and loss of privacy to the neighbouring dwellings.
Page 92 7. Impact on the character of the area
The proposal is for 5 dwellings on the plot frontage and two larger dwellings to the rear. The character of the area is of ribbon development fronting onto Fullers Road.
The dwellings would be two-storey with a traditional pitched roof design. The dwellings in the area are of a mixed character and there are no strong local design features.
The land is not level, and slopes down to the north and west. The dwellings would be set into the slope of the land with the dwellings on plots 1 and 2 being about 8.5m high, the dwellings on plots 3, 4 and 5 being about 8.2m high, the dwelling on plot 6 being 9m high at the front and just over 12m high at the rear where the land slopes away, and the dwelling on plot 7 being 9m high at the front and just under 12m high at the rear.
The area is characterised by loose-knit development with detached dwellings on fairly large plots. The frontage of development of a pair of semi-detached dwellings and a terrace of 3 dwellings would, therefore, not follow the character of the area directly. However, the proposal would result in a built form of two 'blocks' of development which would be in keeping with the form of development along the street.
In the objections raised, it has been pointed out that permission was refused in 2003 for one infill dwelling on this site and at the reason for refusal stated that:
The proposed development would be an undesirable development of an important gap beyond the main built up area of Holt Pound which if permitted would be seriously detrimental to the visual amenity and rural character of the locality ...
That refusal was in the context of a local plan policy which allowed an infill dwelling in a gap in an otherwise continuously built-up frontage if the vacant site was in keeping with the size and character of adjacent plots. In the context of that policy, the 'gap' that this plot created was not a plot in keeping with its neighbours.
The current application has to be viewed in the context of current National Planning Policy Framework Policy, the Joint Core Strategy and the situation where the District does not have a 5 year housing supply. The importance of the site as a visual gap in the Fullers Road frontage has to be reassessed and it is the view of the Council's landscape officer that infilling along the Fullers Road frontage would be acceptable but that development on the northern part of the site would be harmful to the landscape character of the area. This would concur with The Draft Employment and Housing Allocation Plan, which sees the site as suitable for linear development along Fullers Road of up to 5 houses.
The proposal as it stands would be contrary to JCS Policy CP20, which requires that new development protects and enhances local distinctiveness and sense of place. The landscape officer also has concerns about erosion on the steep slope down to the stream.
The South Downs National Park Boundary ends just over 50m away to the south of the site. However, it would be difficult to argue that there would be a significant impact on the setting of the park from the frontage development because there is an intervening row of dwellings along the northern boundary of the National Park. A track opposite the site leads down into the National Park, but the northern end of it emerges into the' village'.
Page 93 The main concern about the impact on the character of the area therefore relates to the backland development which is out of character with the pattern of development in the area and would harm the landscape character to the north.
8. Trees and ecology
The County Ecologist has requested further information and clarification of issues in relation to potential impact on protected species.
The majority of trees are on the boundary of the site but there is one substantial oak within the site, in what would be the rear garden of plot 6. The aboricultural officer has been consulted and an update will be provided at Committee.
9. Drainage
There are objections both from the Council's drainage consultant and from the Environment Agency. The Drainage Consultant is concerned about the impact of surface water run-off from the site. The Environment Agency has concerns about the possibility of flooding on the site.
10. Energy conservation
Policy CP24 of the JCS requires new development to promote the conservation of energy by seeking the highest practicable degree of energy efficiency. In this instance, on completion, the dwelling should meet at least level 4 Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) threshold and must provide at least 10% of energy demand from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy sources. It is not stated in the application how this would be achieved.
Details would ordinarily be sought through a condition if this application was being supported.
11. Archaeology
There is no objection from the County Archaeologist.
12. Developer contributions
The three tests as set out in Regulation 122(2) require S.106 agreements to be:
(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development .
As the application proposes the provision of 7 additional residential units, in order for the development to be acceptable in planning terms, a S.106 agreement is required to secure the following contributions:
Page 94 • £10,260 - Community facilities in accordance with Policy CP32 of the JCS • £10,206 - Recreational open space provision in accordance with policy CP18 of the JCS • £29,639 - Transportation improvements in accordance with policies CP31 of the JCS and T2 of the Local Plan • Securing the affordable housing element in accordance with policy CP13 of the JCS • 5% admin and monitoring fee in accordance with the Council's 'Guide to Developer Contributions' 2014
The County Council has confirmed that they will not be seeking a contribution towards the expansion of the primary school in Rowledge.
The above contributions would need to be secured by a legal obligation under S106 of the 1990 Planning Act. No such obligation has been progressed and so an objection is raised due to the conflict with policies CP13, CP18, CP31 and CP32 of the JCS and policy T2 of the Local Plan and the Council's 'Guide to Developer Contributions' 2014.
Response to Parish/Town Council Comments
The Parish Council has raised concerns about 'overdevelopment', insufficient parking and surface water drainage. It is considered that rather than the application being 'overdevelopment', it fails to respect the pattern of development in the area. The concerns about surface water drainage are agreed with. There is currently an objection from the County Highway Authority in terms of access and parking.
Conclusion
The principle of some new housing development in this location is difficult to resist, having regard to the presumption in favour of development set out in the NPPF and the council's current lack of a 5 year housing land supply. The JCS recognises that some further greenfield development is necessary in villages such as Holt Pound. However, in this case there are technical objections from the County Ecologist, County Highways Authority, the Council's drainage consultant and the Environment Agency. It is not clear that the constraints on the site, particularly in terms of surface water run-off can be adequately addressed.
There are also strong concerns from the Council's Landscape Officer in terms of the impact of the backland development on the character of the landscape to the rear of the site.
On balance it is concluded that the harm that this proposal would cause would outweigh the benefit of housing provision. Consequently, in accordance with the NPPF, sufficient grounds exist to withhold planning permission for this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
REFUSAL for the following reasons:
Page 95 1 The proposal would result in an unacceptable suburban form of development which would adversely effect the character and appearance of the settlement and the landscape character of the countryside to the north. The layout would not contribute to local distinctiveness and would not be sympathetic to its surroundings. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies CP1, CP2, CP20 and CP29 of the Joint Core Strategy 2014, the sustainability aims of the NPPF and the East Hampshire Countryside Design Summary.
2 The proposal would adversely affect the amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings in terms of loss of privacy and loss of light to side windows, contrary to Joint Core Strategy Policy CP27.
3 No provision has been made for public open space within the proposal contrary to Policy CP32 of the Joint Core Strategy, the Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014 and the Council's 'Guide to Developers' Contributions and Other Planning Requirements'.
4 No provision has been made towards integrated transportation measures with the proposal, contrary to Policies CP31 and CP32 of the Joint Core Strategy, the Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014 and the Council's 'Guide to Developers' Contributions and Other Planning Requirements'.
5 No provision has been made towards community facilities, contrary to Policy CP32 of the Joint Core Strategy, the Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014 and the Council's 'Guide to Developers' Contributions and Other Planning Requirements'.
6 Without a Section 106 legal agreement or unilateral undertaking from the applicant agreeing to the following additional provisions (set out in full in the officers report) an objection is raised in accordance with policy CP13 and CP32 of the Joint Core Strategy and the Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014:
• Securing at least 40% affordable housing provision on site • Five per cent contribution towards administration and monitoring fee • Drainage Management and Maintenance
7 It has not been demonstrated that there would not be harm caused to protected species, contrary to Joint Core Strategy Policy CP21 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
8 Inadequate visibility splays are proposed at the junction of the access with the highway and this would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP31 of the East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy.
Page 96 9 The proposal incorporates inadequate car parking provision within the site clear of the highway with the result that it would be likely to encourage the parking of vehicles on the public highway which would interrupt the free flow of traffic to the detriment of highway safety. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy CP31 of the East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy.
10 From the information available it cannot be shown that the development can be accommodated in a manner that would not cause increased danger and inconvenience to highway users. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP31 of the East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy.
11 On the basis of the information available it has not been demonstrated that a satisfactory surface water drainage system can be provided to avoid an adverse impact in terms of surface water run-off affecting areas off-site, contrary to Joint Core Strategy Policy CP25.
12 The Flood Risk Assessment provided is inadequate and does not demonstrate that the proposed development would be outside Flood Zone 3, contrary to Joint Core Strategy CP25.
Informative Notes to Applicant:
1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach and works with applicants/agents on development proposals in a manner focused on solutions by:
offering a pre-application advice service,
updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,
by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter.
In this instance the agent was provided with pre-application advice, the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit.
CASE OFFICER: Nicky Powis 01730 234226 ———————————————————————————————————————
Page 97 SECTION 1 Item 3 Land west of Wood End, Fullers Road, Rowledge, GU10 4DF
Proposed site plan
Proposed street scene
SECTION 1 Item 3 Land west of Wood End, Fullers Road, Rowledge, GU10 4DF
Page 98
Proposed plot 6 front, south elevation
Proposed plot 6 north elevation
SECTION 1 Item 3 Land west of Wood End, Fullers Road, Rowledge, GU10 4DF
Page 99
Proposed front south elevation plot 7
Proposed rear north elevation plot 7
Page 100 Page 101
Item No.: 04 The information, recommendations, and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.
PROPOSAL New agricultural access from Whichers Gate Road to Mays Coppice Farm LOCATION: Mays Coppice Farm, Whichers Gate Road, Rowlands Castle, PO9 5NE REFERENCE : 30661/025 PARISH:Rowlands Castle APPLICANT: Mr Family CONSULTATION EXPIRY : 06 September 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY : 23 September 2014 COUNCILLOR: Cllr M C Harvey SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
This application has been included on the agenda at the request of Councillor Harvey for the following reasons:
• There is already one very good access on this land that has been there for more than 100 years and there has never been a problem with it.
• To make another access on to this land would be an intrusion into the countryside on a very busy road that has recently had another fatality on it.
• If you look at the inspectors report about this land when the applicants wanted to put their nursery on it, you will find that the Parish spoke about this entrance and it was upheld by the inspector.
Site and Development
The application site lies within Mays Coppice Farm to the south of the settlement of Rowlands Castle. The village of Rowlands Castle lies to the north of the site. Mays Coppice Farm fronts the north-east side of Whichers Gate Road (B2148) which links Emsworth to Horndean. The farm is a fully-functional and operation arable farm, comprising 32 hectares of the land. Most of the land is open pasture and enclosed in part by tree belts. There is a group of buildings to the north-east of the site, which comprise the Mays Coppice Farm buildings, some 450m along an access lane from Whichers Gate Road. They include farm buildings and three dwellings, one of which is in separate ownership. The two narrow agricultural fields between the access road to the south-east and the railway line are also in separate ownership. There is a belt of mature trees on the south-western side of the farmland fronting Whichers Gate Road.
The site is within a rural location and outside the settlement policy boundary.
Page 102
The application is for an agricultural access on to Whichers Gate Road to serve the farmland. The access would have a width of 6 metres and visibility splays of 2.4 x 120m to the north-west and 2.4 x 120m to the south-east are proposed. A field gate would be set back 15 metres from the highway.
Relevant Planning History
30661/015 - Conversion of dairy building to self-contained staff accommodation. Permission 09/11/2000 30661/017 - Variation of section 106 agreement on 30661/015 to allow part of holding to be sold separately. Permission 04/03/2009 30661/018 - Change of use of agricultural buildings to storage B8 use (as clarified by email received 2.12.09 and amended by email and plan received 8.12.09). Permission 09/12/2009 30661/020 - Front and side extension to building three. (as amended by plans received 21/07/10) Refused 13/08/2010 30661/021 - Outline - garden centre (as amended by details received on 10 march 2011 and 06 may 2011) Refused 10/08/2011 30661/022 - Prior notification - agricultural barn for storage of hay and machinery Prior Approval Not required 03/02/2012 30661/023 - Garden centre, horticultural glasshouse, car park and associated landscaping including 3 drainage ponds (revised transport assessment received 01.08.2012 and amended information received 19/09/2012). Refused 03/10/2012 30661/024 - Retention of field access track and hard surfaced storage area for container trees. Permission 15/04/2014
Development Plan Policies and Proposals
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014)
CP19 - Development in the countryside CP20 - Landscape CP31 - Transport
Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Village Design Statement - Rowlands Castle Village Design Statement - non statutory planning guidance that has been the subject of public consultation and therefore is a material planning consideration.
Rowlands Castle Parish Plan 2008
Page 103
Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments
Highways - No objection in principle
Arboricultural Officer - No objection, subject to conditions.
Drainage Officer - No objection, subject to conditions.
Rowlands Castle Parish Council – Object.
The Parish Council discussed this Application at its Meeting on 1 September 2014 and unanimously agreed to OBJECT on the following grounds.
The Application concerns the creation of a new access point to the adjacent farmland, in the same position as the access point for a proposed garden centre on the site which was refused at Appeal in July 2013. The Applicant claims the land is now a fully working farm. Casual inspection does not, however, support this. The Applicant also claims the existing access joins Whichers Gate Road within a National Speed Limit zone, whereas recently a 40mph limit has now been imposed on that part of the road. The Application does not state the anticipated number or direction of travel of the vehicles expected to use the proposed access point. It is not accompanied by a Road Safety Audit, nor does it state what standards or guidance were followed when designing the proposed access point. Only northbound traffic data has been supplied in support of the Application, however this still indicates an 85th percentile speed of 44.5mph, which means that the proposed visibility splays are unlikely to be adequate for safety requirements, under the DfTs Design Manual for Roads and Bridges recommendations. The Applicant justifies the proposed new access point to the field(s) on the grounds it would be safer than the existing access from the farm track. However, there is already a gate to the field(s) about 30m along the straight farm track off Whichers Gate Road, so contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, there is no need to travel along the entire length of the track in order to access the field(s). There is also a substantial visibility splay from the farm track onto Whichers Gate Road, allowing for vehicles to pull off the road before negotiating the track and/or the gateway.
An Application in April 2014 also included provision for additional access to the field(s) from the farm buildings at the other end of the track. There are very few vehicle movements along this track, which has no passing points. The Transport Assessment (TA) which accompanied the Applicants 2012 Application for a Garden Centre on this site only recorded one accident around the entrance to the existing farm track, which did not appear to have been caused by the presence of the driveway itself. Likewise, it reports there have been two accidents in the vicinity of the new proposed access. The TA concluded, overall, there is no apparent pattern to the accident and their occurrence appears to be random in nature. There does not appear to be a specific road safety problem at this location and there are no engineering measures which could reasonably reduce the occurrence of accidents at this location based upon the records studied.
There is also concern that farm vehicles driving straight on the road at the proposed new access would drop mud, so creating an additional hazard, leading to further safety risks.
Page 104
The Council noted the Application’s reference to the NPPF guidelines on Supporting a prosperous local economy, and EHDCs JCS Policy CP6 on Rural Economy and Enterprise, but cannot envisage how these proposals would add to the stimulation of the rural economy, given the field(s) in question already have adequate access.
In conclusion, this Council objects to the Application because the proposals do not fulfil the criteria set by the Applicant, the proposed access is less safe than the existing access and the proposed visibility splays are not adequate for the speed of the traffic on the road. There is no evidence to suggest a need for the proposals and the data provided with the Application is, in the opinion of this Council, inadequate.
Representations
None received.
Determining Issues
1. Principle of development and highway issues 2. Other issues raised in consultation
Planning Considerations
1. Principle of development and highway issues
The site is within the countryside so Policy CP19 applies. Policy CP19 states that development within the countryside will be permitted provided it is necessary for farming, would not harm the character of the locality and would not result in the generation of volumes of traffic which would cause an inconvenience on the public highway or harm the rural character of the local roads.
The supporting statement submitted with the application clarifies that the access is required for agricultural traffic only. The existing access to the land also serves three dwellings, one of which is in separate ownership, and serves former agricultural buildings used for business storage. This access is close to the railway bridge, which creates difficulties for farm vehicles entering the track, especially from the south. At this point the national speed limit is in place, and traffic from the south passing over the bridge is typically travelling fast. This results in a hazardous situation for slow moving farm vehicles entering or leaving the site.
The Highway Officer has visited the site and states in their comments that a speed survey was required. This has been submitted and, following further consultation with County Highways, it has been confirmed that the submitted speed survey shows an 85th percentile wet weather speed which exceeds 50mph in a number of instances; however, the recorded speeds were generally lower than this and were approaching 45mph. Therefore, in the interests of highway safety, visibility splays consisting of 2.4m by 120m would be applicable. Amended plans have been received showing the required visibility splays.
Page 105
The proposal is considered reasonably necessary for the needs of farming, and for the reasons discussed above, the access, in terms of highway safety, has been confirmed as the most suitable solution.
It is not anticipated that the types and amounts of vehicles would change as a result of this application, so there would be no overall increase in vehicular movements. The proposal would cause inconvenience to other highway users or harm the character of the existing roads.
2. Other issues raised in consultations
With regards to trees and landscaping, it has been agreed in principle by the Arboricultural Officer to the use of the existing gap in the tree belt as an access, subject to works to safeguard the mature trees, in accordance with the submitted documents and the submitted Arboricultural Reports, including the Arboricultural Method Statement, Tree Retention and Tree Protection Plans received on the 29th July 2014. A finalised Arboricultural Method Statement would be required for prior approval, detailing the method to be used for the construction of the access road and how it is proposed to safeguard the mature trees.
Conclusion
The access is reasonably required for farming and would not harm the appearance of the locality or inconvenience other highway users, in accordance with all relevant policies of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review and East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION
PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this planning permission. Reason - To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
2 No development shall start on site until details of a scheme to prevent surface water from the site discharging on to the adjacent highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for surface water drainage and avoid discharge of water onto the public highway.
3 The proposed hard surface/s shall either be made of porous materials or provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the hard surface/s to a permeable or porous surface within the site.
Page 106 Reason - To ensure adequate provision for surface water drainage and avoid discharge of water onto the public highway.
4 All works hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Arboricultural Method Statement, Tree Retention and Tree Protection Plans received 29th July 2014. A finalised Arboricultural Method Statement will be required for prior approval, as detailed in Chapter 8 of the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement detailing the method to be used for the construction of the access road and how it is proposed to safeguard the mature trees. Reason - To ensure that the trees on and around the site are adequately protected from damage to their health and /or amenity value.
5 No development shall start on site until the access, including the footway and/or verge crossing shall be constructed and lines of sight of 2.4 metres by 120 metres provided in accordance with the approved plans. The lines of sight splays shown on the approved plans shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 1metre in height above the adjacent carriageway and shall be subsequently maintained so thereafter.
Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interests of highway safety.
6 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars:
Application Form Letter from Bryan Jezeph Consultancy to EHDC 28 July 2014 Planning Statement Arboricultural Method Statement Tree Survey Schedules Location Plan 4869.001 Rev B Proposed Field Access Arrangements 4869.002 Section 278 Site Access Works Extent of Porous Construction Tree Survey & Constraints Plan Tree Retentions & Removals Plan & Tree Protection Plan
Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development
Informative Notes to Applicant:
1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach and works with applicants/agents on development proposals in a manner focused on solutions by:
• offering a pre-application advice service,
Page 107
• updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,
• by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter.
In this instance the application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was required.
CASE OFFICER: Mark Webb 01730 234235 ———————————————————————————————————————
Page 108
SECTION 1 Item 4 Mays Coppice Farm, Whichers Gate Road, Rowlands Castle, PO9 5NE
Proposed field access arrangements
Page 109 Tree Survey and Constraints plan
Page 110 Item No.: 5
The information, recommendations, and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.
PROPOSAL One Oak tree - in order to ensure that the tree remains in a safe condition - prune back the damaged limb to the first suitable growing point behind the tear, and crown reduce by no more than 2 metres, using tip reduction techniques, to leave a finished crown spread of 7 metres and a finished height of 16 metres. LOCATION: Wood north of, Headley Hill Road, Headley Down, Bordon REFERENCE : 30465/014 PARISH:Headley APPLICANT: Cllr A Williams CONSULTATION EXPIRY : 13 November 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY : 08 December 2014 COUNCILLOR(S): Cllr A J Williams / Cllr R C S Millard SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: CONSENT
This application is included on the agenda as it has been submitted by a District Councillor/member of staff.
The Monitoring Officer confirms that this proposal has been dealt with in accordance with the Council’s procedures for handling planning proposals submitted by or on behalf of Council Members and Staff.
Site and Development
The tree, subject to this application is amid aged Oak on the northern edge of the woodland at the rear of Little Benifold. It also stands adjacent to the boundary with the property known as Hawthorns, Beech Hill Road. The application is for consent to prune the tree and is made in order to maintain the tree in a safe condition following some recent storm damage. The application is presented to Planning Committee because it is made by a Councillor.
Relevant Planning History
30465/005 - Fell two Cedars, 25/08/2005, Part Decision Refused.
30465/006 - Fell one (1) Western Red Cedar (tree 'b' on application plan), south of the rear garden boundary of Pooh Corner, Beech Hill Road, 16/10/2007 Consent.
Page 111 30465/007 - Crown lift to no more than 7 metres, the four (4) most westerly western Red Cedars adjacent to the northern boundary of the woodland, 23/04/2008 Consent. 30465/008 - Reduce height of first four (4) Western Red Cedars, in row behind Pooh Corner, by 30%, 27/08/2008 Refused.
30465/009 - Crown lift to 6 metres one (1) beech, south of the rear boundary of hawthorns; and remove the lowest limb on the south side of the canopy of one (1) oak, adjacent to the eastern boundary of hawthorns, 27/08/2008 Consent
30465/010 - Fell one beech tree growing on land south of 'hawthorns' and significantly overhanging part of the southern garden area of the property, 25/11/2008 Consent.
30465/011 - Fell six (6) western Red Cedars adjacent to the northern boundary and to the rear of Whinfell, Bali Hai and Hawthorns, Beech Hill Road. From the west the trees are the 6th, 7th, 9th, 15th, 16th and 18th in the row along this boundary, 21/01/2011 Consent
30465/012 - Fell one mid aged western Red Cedar tree adjacent to the northern boundary and south of Hawthorns, Beech Hill Road, Headley, 20/05/2011 Consent.
30465/013 - Fell one cypress tree in the western most corner of the woodland to the west of Little Benifold and on the boundary with Headley Hill Road, 14/08/2013 Consent.
Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments
Headley Parish Council. NO OBJECTION
Representations
None received.
Planning Considerations
The Arboricultural Officer comments that in general the tree appears healthy and structurally sound. It is also clearly visible from Beech Hill Road to the north. The tree has recently sustained some minor crown damage when one limb snapped out during a period of high winds. The proposed work is necessary, proportionate and will ensure that the tree remains in a safe condition.
Conclusion
The proposed work is necessary and proportionate. It should also have no noticeable impact on local amenities.
RECOMMENDATION
Page 112 CONSENT subject to the following conditions:
1 The contractor (or other person) carrying out the work shall contact the Arboricultural Officer at least 10 days prior to starting work and meet him/her on site if so required. Reason - To ensure that the contractor or person carrying out the work clearly understands the consent.
2 All works shall be carried out in accordance with BS.3998 (2010). Reason - To ensure work of sufficiently high standard is carried out on protected trees and to ensure their health and amenity value is not compromised.
3 The use of climbing irons (spikes) to enter or move around the tree canopy is strictly prohibited. Reason - To ensure the health of the tree(s) is/are not affected detrimentally.
CASE OFFICER: Mr S Garside 01730 234217 ———————————————————————————————————————
Page 113 SECTION 1 Item 5 Wood north of, Headley Hill Road, Headley Down, Bordon
Site showing siting of Oak
Page 114
Page 115
Agenda Item 01 Report to Planning Committee Date of Committee 20 November 2014 By Services Manager Planning Development Local Authority East Hants District Council Ward Clanfield and Finchdean Ward Application No: SDNP/14/04838/HOUS Validation Date 24 September 2014 Target Date: 19 November 2014 Applicant: Mr Paul Webb Proposal: Single storey rear and side extension. Loft conversion to create additional bedroom and ensuite (as amended by plan received 04/11/2014) Site Address Merriegarth, Magpie Road, Rowlands Castle, Hampshire, PO8 0AS Purpose of Report The application is reported to Committee for a decision
Recommendation: That the application be Approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report.
Executive Summary
This application is included on the agenda as it has been submitted by a close relative of a member of staff.
Page 116 The Monitoring Officer confirms that this proposal has been dealt with in accordance with the Council's procedures for handling planning proposals submitted by or on behalf of Council Members and Staff.
1. Site Description
Merrigarth is a detached bungalow on the east side of Magpie Road. It is set back from the road with off-road parking for three vehicles to the front, leading to an integral single garage. The property is within a reasonable sized plot set amongst ribbon development fronting onto the road. The enclosed rear garden is screened by fencing and hedging, with the rear boundary facing open countryside. The site is outside the settlement policy boundary for Rowlands Castle and within the South Downs National Park.
2. Relevant Planning History
21600 - Extension to rear. Permission 1975 21600/001 - Addition of utility room, lounge and bedroom extensions. Permission 1987 SDNP/14/03618/HOUS - Single storey rear and side extension following part demolition of existing. Conversion of loft space to create additional bedroom and ensuite with dormer window to east elevation. Withdrawn 2014
3. Proposal
Permission is sought for a single-storey rear and side extension and a loft conversion to create an additional bedroom and ensuite. A dormer window is proposed within the east (rear) elevation with a rooflight in each of the north and west elevations. The dwelling would benefit from three bedrooms, one of which would be within the roofspace. A store/utility room to the south (side) elevation will be removed.
Amended plans have been received to remove French doors and retain existing window to south (side) elevation and insert French doors in the east (rear) elevation to the dining room area.
4. Consultations
Parish Council Consultee
No objection
5. Representations
1 representation received.
Page 117 One letter of objection has been received raising concerns regarding the French doors within the south elevation, which, when open, would exacerbate the noise coming from that room.
6. Policy Context
6.1 Applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plan in this area is the East Hampshire District Local Plan: JCS and EHDC District Local Plan: 2 nd Rev (2006). The relevant policies to this application are set out in section 7, below.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Circular 2010
Government policy relating to National Parks is set out in English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 and The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was issued and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The Circular and NPPF confirm that National Parks have the highest status of protection and the NPPF states at paragraph 115 that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the National Parks and that the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations and should also be given great weight in National Parks.
6.2 National Park Purposes
The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are:
• To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas; • To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas.
If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social well being of the local community in pursuit of these purposes.
6.3 Relationship of the Development Plan to the NPPF and Circular 2010
The JCS policies and saved policies of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review that is relevant to this proposal are up to date ain in accordance with the NPPF.
Page 118 6. 4 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December 2013. It sets out a Vision and long term Outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year Policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. The SDPMP is a material consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending adoption of the SDNP Local Plan. The following Policies and Outcomes are of particular relevance to this case:
General Policy 1 Conserve and enhance the natural beauty and special qualities of the landscape and its setting, in ways that allow it to continue to evolve and become more resilient to the impacts of climate change and other pressures.
7. Planning Policy
The following policies of the Joint Core Strategy (2014) are relevant to this application:
• CP1 Presume in favour of sustainable development • CP2 Spatial Strategy • CP27 Pollution • CP29 Design
and EHDC District Local Plan: 2 nd Review (2006)
• H16 (EH) Maintaining A Range Of Dwelling Size
8. Planning Assessment
Determining Issues
1. Principle of development 2. Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties 3. Impact upon scale and character of dwelling 4. Impact on the character of the area and highway implications
Planning Considerations
1. Principle of development
Policy CP19 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan; Joint Core Strategy (JCS) sets out that permission will only be granted for development within the countryside provided it meets several criteria, one of which is that there is a proven need for a countryside location. In this instance, the proposal is for a domestic extension in connection with a dwelling which is located within the countryside, as such, the existing siting necessitates the need for the location.
Page 119 The proposal lies outside any SPB and as such any residential development for an extension of an existing dwelling is subject to accordance with the criteria set out in saved Policy H16 of the Local Plan: Second Review 2006.
Policy H16 restricts extensions to dwellings of this size to 50 per cent of their original floor area as at 1 April 1974, in order to maintain a range of dwelling sizes in the countryside.
Original dwelling = 119.69 sqm Previous and proposed extensions = 59.53 sqm
The proposal would equate to a 49 per cent increase in floor area which complies with policy H16.
2. Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties
Policy CP27 of the JCS requires that developments would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties through loss of privacy or excessive overshadowing.
There are no properties directly to the east or west which are likely to be affected by the proposed development.
The proposed would be viewed from the neighbouring properties to the north and south. However, the single-storey rear extensions are set in from the side boundaries with no increase in ridge height to the main dwelling, therefore, the proposed development is unlikely to have any impact in terms of appearing over bearing. Two rooflights are proposed, one within the north (side) and one to west (front) elevation, however, a condition will be added to secure obscure glazing to the rooflight within the side elevation, to ensure there would be no loss of privacy to the neighbouring property. The rear dormer window would sit centrally within the roof facing the rear garden area and open countryside beyond and would, therefore, have no significant impact on the neighbouring properties to the north and south. The side extension at ground-floor would have a side window facing the neighbouring property to the north, however, this would accommodate a utility room, which is not a habitable room and would be screened by the existing boundary screening.
Concerns have been raised regarding an increase in noise level from the French doors which were originally proposed within the south (side) elevation. However, amended plans have been received removing the French doors and retaining the existing window to the south (side) elevation and installing French doors to the east (rear) elevation. It is considered that these amendments would help to reduce any noise impact on the neighbouring property.
Page 120 As such, it is considered that the proposal would be sufficiently distanced, orientated and designed so as not to have an unacceptable effect on the amenities of the neighbouring properties, in particular to their outlook, privacy or available light.
3. Impact upon scale and character of dwelling
Saved Policy HE2 of the Local Plan requires that alterations and extensions to buildings are designed to take account of the design, scale, and character of the original building, its plot size and its setting.
The property is situated on a reasonable sized plot. There would be no increase in roof height and, as such, the rear and side extensions and loft conversion are considered to be appropriate in terms of their scale and design. The alterations would be constructed of matching materials to the main dwelling and, therefore, the character of the dwelling would be retained.
4. Impact on the South Downs National Park, character of the area and highway implications
Policy CP29 of the JCS seeks to ensure that development proposals are of exemplary standards of design and architecture, with a high quality external appearance that respect the area's particular characteristics. It requires that developments are sympathetic to their setting in terms of scale, height and massing, and their relationship to adjoining buildings, spaces around buildings, and that developments should make a positive contribution to the overall appearance of the area. Saved Policy HE2 of the Local Plan reiterates CP29 as set out above.
The scale and bulk of the proposal is in-keeping with the property and surrounding buildings and would not appear overly dominant in the streetscene or wider area. The only visible alteration from the front being the addition of a rooflight and the roof of the side extension, which would be sited to the rear of the integral garage. The application is for the alteration of an existing dwelling and the provision for its amenities and parking would remain adequate. The dwelling would not be unbalanced by the proposal and existing features such as ridge heights, eaves heights and other proportions would be reflected in the extension.
As such it is considered that there would be no impact on the character of the area or highways and the proposal accords with the purposes of the South Downs National Park.
Page 121 9. Conclusion
The proposal is considered to be acceptable as it accords with Policy H16, would be in scale and character with the dwelling, would not detract from the character and appearance of the area, would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, would not have an adverse effect on the safety and function of the highway network and accords with the purposes of the South Downs National Park. As such, the proposal is in compliance with the relevant policies of the East Hampshire District Council: Joint Core Strategy and East Hampshire District Council Local Plan: Second Review.
10. Recommendation
It is recommended that the application be Approved subject to the conditions set out below
1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:
Plan Type Reference Version Date on Plan Status
Plans - Block Floor A1014/251 04.11.2014 Approved and elevational plan - REV C Proposed
Application Form - 02.10.2014 Approved Application Form
OS Extract - Location 02.10.2014 Approved plan
Plans - Existing plans A1014/250 02.10.2014 Approved REV B
Reason - For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
02. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason - To comply with the provisions of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)./ To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Page 122 03. The external materials to be used shall match, as closely as possible, in type, colour, and texture those of the existing building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason - To ensure that a harmonious visual relationship is achieved between the new and the existing developments.
04. Notwithstanding any indication shown on the approved plans, the rooflight in the north (side) elevation of the development hereby permitted shall at all times be; (i) glazed with obscure glass, and (ii) non-opening below 1.7 metres from the finished floor level of the room in which the window is installed. Reason - To protect the privacy of the occupants of the adjoining residential property.
05. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no further first-floor windows shall at any time be inserted in the north and south (side) elevations of the development hereby permitted. Reason - To protect the privacy of the occupants of the adjoining residential properties.
Case Officer Details Name: Bernie Beckett Tel No: 01730 234336 Email: [email protected]
Page 123
Part 2, Section 1,Item 1 Merriegarth, Magpie Road, Rowlands Castle, P08 0AS
Proposed ground floor
Page 124
Part 2, Section 1,Item 1 Merriegarth, Magpie Road, Rowlands Castle, P08 0AS
Page 125 Proposed first floor plan
Part 2, Section 1, Item 1 Merriegarth, Magpie Road, Rowlands Castle, P08 0AS
Proposed east elevation
Page 126 Proposed north elevation
Part 2, Section 1, Item 1 Merriegarth, Magpie Road, Rowlands Castle, P08 0AS
Proposed west elevation
Proposed south elevation
Page 127 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 128 Page 129
PART 2
SOUTH DOWNS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY
PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT OF THE SERVICE MANAGER PLANNING DEVELOPMENT
Related planning matters to be considered by the Council on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority
PS.439/2014 20 November 2014 SECTION 2 – OTHER MATTERS
Item No.: 01 The information, recommendations and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.
PROPOSAL 276 DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED WORKS INCLUDING GARAGES, PARKING, ACCESS AND DEMOLITION OF 44 & 46 RAMSHILL LOCATION: Land to the north of, Ramshill, Petersfield, GU314AT REFERENCE : 35364/002 PARISH: Petersfield APPLICANT: Taylor Woodrow Developments Limited COUNCILLOR: Cllr G B Stacpoole SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: REPORT BE NOTED
Purpose of Report
To update the Committee on the position relating to the provision of the footpath along Skinners Farm Lane, which should be provided as part of the above development.
Page 130 Summary
The provision of a public footpath link, as required by a condition attached to planning permission 35364/002 along Skinners Farm Lane has not yet been achieved. The matter has been the subject of ongoing discussions with both the developers and officers of Hampshire County Council acting as Highway Authority. The purpose of this report is to up-date Councilors on progress since the last report in December 2013.
The current position
As the developer had not progressed the provision of the footpath down Skinners Farm Lane, a Breach of Condition Notice (BCN) was served in February 2013 to secure the councils position in this matter. The BCN gives 2 years for compliance, as the difficulties in securing this route are recognised. This lengthy period is in recognition that the agreement of third parties would have to be obtained before works could commence on the footpath. If such agreement is not secured voluntarily, legal action may be the only option. Two years is considered sufficient time to resolve any third party/legal issues and provide the footpath.
In response to the BCN, regular meetings have been held with the developer and HCC Highways officers to secure a way forward. A review of the structural condition of the adjacent walls has taken place, carried out by agents for the developer and HCC Highways, which has established that the condition has deteriorated from the previous survey in 2008. As there is no public access to Skinners Farm Lane, no formal action can be taken by the council's Building Control Service. Building Control officers have visited the site and have written to the owners of the walls to advise them that works should be carried out to make the walls safe.
The developer sent letters to the four landowners of the walls identified as requiring remedial works and has met with the neighbouring landowners to secure way forward with the structures on their land. This is a private matter between the developer and the adjoining landowners to resolve, but progress has been monitored as part of the overall compliance with the BCN. This part of the process has taken a significant amount of time to progress.
The retaining walls of the property closest to Ramshill, (18 Ramshill) are in good condition and do not require any remedial works to be carried out. However, the walls of the next two properties in Hogarth Close require significant works. Assessments have been carried out with regard to the soil conditions in the gardens of these two properties and a solution devised. The design solution is currently with the County Highway Authority (CHA) for assessment and, should this be satisfactory to the CHA, then the developer will confirm with the landowners that the developer is able to carryout the works on their land. This again is a private matter between the developer and the two land owners.
The design solution would remove the retaining walls and slope back the ground in the gardens, with a geotextile fabric over the slope, and a fence at the top of the slope to provide security for those gardens. The lighting scheme has been amended to meet current PFI standards and surface water drainage has been provided
Page 131 Whilst the developer may prefer that CHA to adopt the route, without the roads and paths on the main scheme also being adopted, this would become a public route linking to private land. It is clearly desirable for the roads and footways on the whole development to be adopted as soon as possible and this would assist in the negotiations relating to Skinners Farm Lane. Hampshire County Council officers have confirmed it has always been the intention of the highway authority to adopt the roads within this estate, subject to compliance with Hampshire County Council standards for adoptable works and the submission of all relevant documentation by the developer.
To that end, HCC has been closely liaising with the developer to progress adoption, including the inspection of the proposed highway works during construction. The major delays, to date, have resulted from problems with the adoption of surface water sewers by Southern Water. The developer has indicated that the legal issues associated with this had been resolved, enabling the sewer adoption to proceed. However, even with regular chasing by the developer and their agent, Southern Water has not progressed the matter further.
Once the surface water drainage system has been adopted, this will then enable the adoption of the roads to be progressed, subject to submission of relevant documentation and satisfactory completion of any outstanding remedial works.
Whilst the council’s officers will continue to liaise with county council officers over the adoption of Skinner Farm Lane: if that fails, the developer will need to secure some private form of long-term maintenance for the route.
Meetings between council officers, the developer and HCC Highways continue to take place approximately every 6 weeks with the next meeting scheduled for 3 December 2014.
Conclusion
The footpath link down Skinners Farm Lane has proven to be more difficult to provide than was envisaged at the application stage. The compromise position reached in December 2009 has not been progressed by the developer and a BCN has been served to seek to secure the works. The provision of the route is supported locally and negotiations are continuing to achieve that end.
The matter of the works to the walls is a private matter between the developer and the adjoining landowners, but progress will continue to be monitored as part of compliance with the BCN.
A further report will be brought to this Committee in February, setting out what progress has been achieved in securing the provision of the route and whether the timescales set out in the BCN will be met.
Recommendation
That the report be noted.
Page 132