Cttee: 6 September Item No. 7 2017

Application no: 17/00069/FUL For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Concrete Cottages Road Old RG20 9LN Proposal Demolition of 2no. semi-detached cottages and erection of 1no. detached and 2no. semi-detached 3 bed dwellings with associated garages.

Registered: 26 January 2017 Expiry Date: 23 March 2017 Type of Application: Full Planning Case Officer: Brian Conlon Application 01256 845244 Applicant: Mr Alexander Terry Agent: Miss Lauren Mintoft Ward: Burghclere, Ward Member(s): Cllr John Izett And Cllr Graham Falconer

Parish: BURGHCLERE CP OS Grid Reference: 446229 158154

Recommendation: the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal

1 The proposal would result in an additional dwelling within the countryside in an isolated location, for which there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify a departure from the Development Plan. The proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policies SD1, SS1 and SS6 of the and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

2 There is insufficient information to be able to adequately assess the impacts on biodiversity in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policy EM4 of the Local Plan 2011-2029. In this regard, the Council is unable to discharge its statutory obligations under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 with regards to European protected species.

3 The development has not been accompanied by a suitable noise assessment which satisfactorily demonstrates that future occupants of the proposed dwellings will not be subject to unacceptable levels of road traffic noise. Therefore, the application is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

4 The development is accompanied by insufficient information to adequately determine whether safe and convenience access for future occupants is be possible onto the public highway. Therefore the application is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.

General Comments

This application has be brought to Development Control Committee at the request of Councillors Izett and Falconer for the following reason:

“A new development as proposed would be significant improvement on the derelict existing cottages which are of poor construction. The new development would provide needed accommodation for members of staff associated with an established and important rural business. There is a shortage of such low-cost accommodation nearby. The hamlet is not isolated. DC confirmed this in its decision of Beacon Hill House (15/00431/FUL) recently which it approved unanimously. The additional unit proposed would be seen as an acceptable windfall to subsidize the development as a whole. The Local Plan seeks windfall opportunities."

Planning Policy

The site lies outside any Settlement Policy Boundary, within the countryside and within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (NWDAONB).

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Section 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes) Section 7 (Requiring good design) Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment)

Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029

Policy SD1 (Sustainable Development) Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing) Policy SS6 (New Housing in the Countryside) Policy EM1 (Landscape) Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation) Policy EM7 (Managing Flood Risk) Policy EM9 (Sustainable Water Management) Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) Policy EM12 (Pollution) Policy CN1 (Affordable Housing) Policy CN6 (Infrastructure) Policy CN9 (Transport)

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

Appendix 5 Design and Sustainability SPD (Construction Statements) 2008 Appendix 6 Design and Sustainability SPD (Waste and Recycling) 2008 Appendix 7 Design and Sustainability SPD (Places to Live) 2008 Appendix 14 Design and Sustainability SPD (Countryside Design Summary) 2008 Appendix 16 Design and Sustainability SPD (Residential Amenity Design Guidance) 2012 Residential Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document 2008

Other relevant documents

Planning Practice Guidance (2017) S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Planning Guidance Note (July 2005, updated April 2015) The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (Amended 2015)

Description of Site

The site for which this application relates comprises of two unoccupied cottages in a semi- detached layout and associated ancillary buildings. These were apparently former workers cottages to the Highclere Estate. The external walls are rendered and appear to be built of solid concrete, the roofs are pitched and clad in slate and tile. A separate single-storey ancillary building is located to the rear of the plots, constructed of brick with pitched roofs.

The site is located on north of Sydmonton Road, near the junction with White Hill and to the east of the four-lane A34 which runs north to south. The site lies approximately 2 miles from Burghclere and around 6 miles from Newbury. The site is situated within the North Wessex Downs AONB and approximately 1 mile east of . Proposal

The application seek permission to provide of 3 new dwellings, comprising of 2no three bed semi- detached houses and 1no three bed detached house following the demolition of the existing pair of semi-detached houses. The proposed layout would provide three dwellings fronting onto the Sydmonton Road, whilst access will be via new driveways to the front of the new dwellings, with proposed private garages and parking located wholly on site.

Consultations

Councillor J Izett:- See General Comments section above.

Councillor G Falconer:- "Cllr Izett phoned me this morning regarding Concrete Cottages 17/00069/FUL and I support his view that this application is referred to DC Committee.

I would urge you to look at the DC Committee minutes of 6 April 2017 at which I and the applicant presented 15/04312/FUL Beacon Hill House which is virtually opposite Concrete Cottages. The Committee voted unanimously for the approval of the application. The Committee visited the site and agreed that this site is not isolated. The cottages form a small hamlet with half a dozen other dwellings all within 50m of each other. The well-known Dew Pond restaurant is within 150m and further on is with a church and houses. Within 50m is the A34 Newbury By Pass with thousands of vehicles each day. The road outside is heavily used by the likes of me who use it instead of the A339 when going from south Newbury to Basingstoke and . Up the hill is the Carnarvon Arms and then the extensive Tothill Services. A new development would be an improvement as Concrete Cottages are unattractive and obsolete - concrete is not the ideal building material. The Local Plan requires us to find windfall development and I see this as perfectly acceptable."

Planning Policy Team:- Objection (Contrary to Policy SS1 and SS6)

Burghclere Parish Council:- No objections "Please can it be noted that Burghclere Parish Council has NO OBJECTIONS to the application number 17/00069/FUL, for the demolition of two semi-detached cottages and the construction of one detached and two semi-detached three- bedroom homes, with garages, at Concrete Cottages, Old Burghclere".

Local Highway Authority:- Objection (Insufficient information).

Landscape Officer:- No objection subject to conditions.

North Wessex Downs AONB Officer:- No objection subject to conditions.

Biodiversity Officer:- Recommend refusal – insufficient information to adequately assess impacts on biodiversity.

Environmental Health Officer:- No objection subject to conditions.

Joint Waste Services:- No objection.

Public Observations

Two letters of objection received summarised as follows:

 House are of great local and historic value, of sound proportions and well designed and built.  The landowner has deliberately failed to look after the building.  New development will require considerable quantities of waste water to be disposed of.  Will existing foul water arrangement be acceptable?

Relevant Planning History None

Assessment

Principle of development

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the development plan for the area is the newly adopted Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029. At a national level, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) constitutes guidance which the LPA must have regard to. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making, but is a material consideration in any subsequent determination.

 Local Plan

The site is located outside any Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB). It is therefore within the part of the borough which is designated as countryside as per Policy SS1 (Scale and distribution of new housing) of the Local Plan.

The Local Plan is explicit in its aims as stated in Paragraph 4.70: 'The aim of the Local Plan is to direct development to within the identified Settlement Policy Boundaries and specific site allocations. Within the countryside it is the intention to maintain the existing open nature of the borough's countryside, prevent the coalescence of settlements and resist the encroachment of development into rural areas. The countryside is therefore subject to a more restrictive policy'.

Policy SS1 sets out a spatial strategy for the Local Authority to meet its full housing need over the Plan period. The strategy is principally based upon the development of allocated Greenfield sites and the redevelopment of land in the towns and villages. Development in the countryside is generally restricted.

The most relevant ALP policy for the proposal is Policy SS6 (New Housing in the Countryside). The policy outlines the exceptional circumstances where it is appropriate to allow new housing development in the countryside.

Policy SS6 states that development in the countryside will only be permitted if the site is on previously developed land; is part of a rural exception scheme; is for the re-use of an existing building; involves the replacement of an existing dwelling; is small scale to meet a locally agreed need; is required to support an existing rural business; or is allocated by a Neighbourhood Plan.

The applicant has stated that "The proposal will, in effect, provide a low cost dwelling to one or more rural workers on the Highclere Estate, reducing travel costs, and journeys by private car between place of residence and work." However no evidence has been provided to show that there is actually an essential need for the occupant to be on site at any time during any 24 hour period and that no alternative suitable accommodation is available in the locality. These are important requirements which must be demonstrated in order to comply with Criteria (f) of Policy SS6.

No information has also been provided to show that the development meets a locally agreed need (Criteria (e)). Therefore the application is not considered to fall within criteria b, c, d, e and f of the policy. On this basis it is considered that only criterion a) of Policy SS6 is most relevant to this development proposal, as it states that development proposals for new housing outside of Settlement Policy Boundaries will only be permitted where they are: a) On 'previously developed land', provided that: i) they do not result in an isolated form of development; and ii) the site is not of high environmental value; and iii) the proposed use and scale of development is appropriate to the site's context; By virtue of the site's location and existing use, it is classified as previously developed land (PDL). With regard to (i), the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan defines 'isolated' within the glossary as:

'In the context of new residential development in the countryside where there is a significant separation between the proposed dwelling and the nearest settlement. Additionally, a dwelling is considered to be isolated if it is not well served by public transport (e.g. within 500 m of a bus stop or train station) or well served by services and facilities (e.g. within 1km of an SPB, which generally contains facilities such as schools, post offices, doctors surgery, etc)'

This particular site lies outside any defined settlement, but is located within a small collection of other properties located to the south and west of the application site. Whilst remote from any settlement, the site is not physically remote from other buildings nereby. However, the site is located a considerable distance away from any local services and facilities. The nearest settlements which contain form of basic amenities, are the small villages of Burghclere and which approximately 3km and 5km away respectively. The A34 services at Tot Hill are 3.7km away. Whilst both these villages and Tot Hill do contain basic services, the ability for future occupants to walk/cycle to these destinations is very limited, particularly given that they would need to walk over 45mins along either a rural bridleway or the unlit verge of White Hill to access the nearest, both of which make the journey impractical and undesirable. As such, the development is likely to have a heavy reliance on the private vehicle.

With regards to the other criteria set out within Policy SS6(a), the application site is currently occupied by two dwellings and therefore it is considered that the site is not of a high environmental value. Furthermore, whilst the main assessment of the acceptability of the application is detailed below, it is also considered that the proposed use and scale of development is appropriate to the site's context and therefore meets the third criteria of the policy. However, as the site is not widely considered to have good accessibility to local amenities and would result in the over reliance on the private car, the proposal would comprise an isolated and unsustainable form of development. Based on the site's lack of access to services and facilities, the proposal would fail to comply with Policy SS6(a) part i). The application would therefore conflict with the Council's housing strategy as set out in Policy SS1 or represent any of the special circumstances outlined in Policy SS6 to allow new residential development within the countryside.

 NPPF

In accepting this conflict with the Local Plan, the NPPF constitutes guidance which the LPA must have regard to. Under the NPPF there is a need to consider whether the development is sustainable and to consider the social, environmental and economic impacts of the development. In considering new housing in rural areas Paragraph 55 advises that:

"To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby."

Paragraph 55 goes on to say that Local Planning Authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances.

Paragraph 49 of the framework goes on to state that housing applications in particular should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The three dimensions to achieving sustainable development are defined in the NPPF as: economic, social and environmental.

The economic role of the NPPF requires proposals to contribute to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy. The social role requires planning to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities and states that it should create a high quality built environment. The environmental role states that the natural built and historic environment should be protected and enhanced and should mitigate and adapt to climate change.

The proposed development would encourage development and associated economic growth through the actual physical building works. The future occupants would also undoubtedly contribute to the local economy and to the continued viability of local services in surrounding villages. However, as this would apply to an increase in a single dwelling only, the economic role of the development is considered limited.

In terms of the social role, the proposal would, through replacement, improve the quality of two existing dwellings, and result in the creation of an additional dwelling. Notwithstanding the contribution of a single dwelling, the Council is currently able (as at 1 April 2016) to demonstrate that it has a 5 year HLS of 6.2 years. The development would therefore make no significant contribution to the Council's housing land supply position. Therefore, the social role of this development is also considered limited.

With regard to the environmental role of this development, the development could reasonably be expected to demonstrate a degree of inherent sustainability through compliance with Council supported energy efficiency and Building Regulations standards. However, the whole development itself would not respond to climate change through its failure to integrate with any existing settlement and lack of opportunity it allows for occupants to utilise community facilities by any means other than private car. This would outweigh any other perceived environmental benefits. An assessment of harm on the wider character of the area will be undertaken later in this report, however this development is not considered to support the overarching sustainability aims of either the Local Plan or NPPF.

 Summary

As the site is not widely considered to have good accessibility to local amenities and result in the over reliance on the private car, the proposal would comprise an unsustainable form of development. Based on the site's lack of access to services and facilities, the proposal would fail to comply with Policy SS6(a). The application would therefore conflict with the Council's housing strategy as set out in Policy SS1 and not represent any of the special circumstances outlined in Policy SS6 to allow new residential development within the countryside. In considering the specific economic, social and environmental considerations of this particular scheme, it is concluded that there would be insufficient benefits of allowing an additional single dwelling in the countryside along with the replacement of 2no. existing dwellings in order to outweigh the principle conflict with the key housing polices of the Local Plan. The development therefore remains unacceptable in principle.

Impact on the character of the area/ design

The application site is situated in the countryside, part of a small cluster of residential properties immediately to the east of the A34. The site is also located within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), which is a national designation noting the sensitivity of the landscape in this location.

The landscape in this area is distinctly rural, with a rolling landform and large scale field patterns. Due to the nature of the landscape in this area, the site is visible from a number of vantage points including the passing roads, and a Public Right of Way (PRoW) emerges onto Sydmonton Road to the southeast of the site. It is also likely that the site is visible from local high points and landscape features such as Beacon Hill to the southwest.

At present, the site is overgrown as a result of it being unoccupied for some time. Existing trees and hedgerows define the northern and eastern boundary of the site, whereby an open field in beyond. This provides relative degree of softening to the wider landscape. To the west, another house prevent any extended views. In its current form and appearance, the site within residential use is not considered to detract from the characteristics and attractiveness of the local area.

The level of development proposed would not appear as overdevelopment given the overall size of the site and resultant distance between these three properties and adjoining neighbours. The replacement of the existing two dwellings and addition of an extra detached dwelling is also not considered to introduce any new or harmful uses into this part of the countryside.

No objections have been raised by the Council's Landscape Officer and the AONB Officer provided that a comprehensive landscaping scheme is incorporated with materials, planting and boundary treatments sympathetic to the surrounding rural character. The new dwellings would not detract from the character of this small pocket of properties within the countryside and it is considered that when viewed from wider afield, these properties would be read within this context in a rural area.

It is considered that the proposed new properties would not appear out of keeping or so visually prominent to cause undue harm or impact upon the character of the street scene or the wider AONB. The properties and associated garages would be of a size, scale and design appropriate for the site itself as well as this rural location.

In terms of design and appearance, adequate detailing has been included to ensure a high degree of visual interest without appearing to contrast with surrounding properties. The materials would comprise brick and tile and this is considered to be acceptable. Despite the indicative level of detail show on the submitted plans, it is also considered reasonable to impose a condition securing hard and soft landscaping within the site itself, in order to ensure that any development can successfully integrate into the wider rural area, should permission be granted.

Biodiversity

The site is currently vacant and appears to have been so for a while. It contains a range of buildings which are to be demolished which may/may not hold bat roosts which are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. In addition, the surrounding overgrown garden area may contain protected habitats or species which will require mitigating strategies in order to adhere to above legislation and Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

In light of the above, a Preliminary Ecological Survey/Assessment of the development site is required to accompany the application. Such an assessment should include information on whether the development is likely to have an impact on any designated sites, key habitats and/or notable/protected species within or adjacent to the application site. Should an initial assessment indicate a need for more detailed surveys, this work should be complete prior to any determination. If the ecological survey/assessment of the development site indicates any significant ecological issues, proposals will need to be submitted for mitigating any potential adverse effects on biodiversity.

As the above information has not been supplied, there is insufficient information to be able to adequately assess the impacts on biodiversity in accordance with Policy EM4 of the Local Plan. In addition, the applicant needs to provide the above information in order to comply with the Council's duty to discharge its statutory obligations under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 with regards to European protected species.

Impact on neighbouring amenities

The closest residential properties to the site are located beyond the highway to the south and west of the site. To the south across Sydmonton Road lies Beacon Hill House, where permission was recently granted for the termination of the existing vehicle dismantling use and erection of two dwellings (under application 15/04312/FUL). The nearest of these newly approved properties would be located around 30m to the south of the nearest dwellings on the application site. The adjoining neighbour to the west is located approximately 20m away. Given the resultant distances to these surrounding neighbours, it is considered that the proposals would not have any adverse impact in terms of any overbearing effects and would not result in any loss of light or outlook to the detriment of residential amenities.

Finally, the proposed detached garages, whilst visible from neighbouring properties and from the Sydmonton Road, would be of an appropriate size and siting within the site to avoid any additional impacts upon neighbouring amenities.

Given the level of proposed development and location of adjoining residential properties, it is considered reasonable to impose conditions restricting working and delivery hours to the site, should permission be granted. Amenity of future occupants

The guidance contained within Appendix 16 'Residential Amenity Design Guidance' of the Design and Sustainability SPD states that a 3 bedroom dwelling should provide a minimum garden size of 50 square metres and should have a minimum garden depth of 10m. All proposed gardens would provide rear private amenity space well in excess of these requirements and it is considered that the proposal would provide ample garden space for the amenities of future occupiers. No objections are raised in this regard.

Noise

The application site is located in close proximity to the heavily trafficked A34 which is acknowledged to be a predominant source of noise to the development. This was reinforced by site visits where road traffic noise from the A34 has been very audible.

However, a noise assessment which quantifies and assesses the impact of road traffic noise on future occupants has not been submitted with the proposals. It has therefore not been adequately demonstrated that road traffic noise will not give rise to adverse impacts on the amenity of future occupants of the proposed dwellings.

As such the proposals do not accord with the requirements of Paragraph 123 of the NPPF which requires that planning decisions should aim to;

 avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development;

 mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.

The development is also therefore contrary to Policy EM12 of the Local Plan. The LPA is therefore not in a position to support this application until in receipt of a suitable noise assessment which demonstrates that future occupants of the proposed dwellings will not be subject to unacceptable levels of road traffic noise.

Contaminated Land

Potential sources of contamination were identified on the site during a recent site walkover by an Environmental Health Officer. Conditions requiring contamination assessments to be submitted can therefore be recommended should permission be granted.

Highways and Parking

The site is situated within a 'Rural' area for the purposes of assessing NPPF Sustainable Transport Modes and the provision of vehicle and cycle parking, plus refuse/recycling facilities. The application proposes two new accesses onto the Sydmonton Road to replace the existing driveway accesses which lie to the east and west sides of the existing cottages. Visibility is restricted at the accesses and along the site frontage due to embankments rising from the carriageway edge which are covered by dense vegetation. The existing fence line atop the embankment is around 1.2m from the carriageway. The proposed layout indicates a boundary line around 2.4m from the carriageway.

The two proposed accesses would be at new locations in the frontage. No details have been provided as to the visibility splays or the extent of land that might need to be removed or lowered in order to achieve them. Traffic speed survey information is also not included, which is likely to be important given the road is national speed limit and close to a junction.

The hedge of the adjacent property to the west is set around 2.3m back from the carriageway. Forward of that is a grassed verge. It appears that if the whole extent of the site frontage was altered visibility splays to nearside road edge tangent points could be achievable. However, further information would be required to detail the creation of such visibility splays in order demonstrate compliance.

It should be noted that works to create the new accesses and alter highway land would require approval from County Council as the Highway Authority.

The layout drawing shows that the driveways for the two sets of dwellings would be separated and both would have areas to offer on-site turning for cars. The plans also show separate structures that could be garages or car ports, however, there are no related detail drawings with the application.

The detached three bedroom house would have parking for four cars. The semi-detached three bedroom houses also, would share parking for four cars. In this rural location it is expected that car ownership/use would be higher and therefore, the semi-detached houses could benefit from larger driveways with more parking. The parking requirement in this location if a driveway and parking area was equally shared, would be nine parking places. Due to the indicated segregation, a suggested revision would be to provide three parking places for each of the semi-detached units. Areas for placing waste containers for collection would be needed. These should be on or adjacent to the driveway areas where they do not restrict access, visibility or manoeuvring. Secure storage for cycles would be required and details need to be provided. Appropriately sized garages could offer suitable storage.

In its current form, the LPA is unable to support this application until further information concerning access, visibility, parking and waste collection and/or revision has been submitted and therefore this constitutes a standalone reason for refusal.

Community Infrastructure Requirements

The application has been scoped in line with the CIL Regulations 2015 and the following tests have been considered:

(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.

Through the Council's 'scoping' process, consideration has been given to whether the net gain in dwellings would attract contributions to mitigate for the impact of additional residents. In this regard, no financial contributions have been sought as the development is below the threshold applicable.

Other Matters

With regard to the representations made by Ward Councillors and the comparison made to the approval of application 15/04312/FUL on Land at Beacon Hill House, whilst acknowledging that the site was isolated, this permission was able to give weight to the ultimate termination of the existing vehicle dismantling yard and replacement with a residential use scheme. This was considered to bring about wider benefits to the character of the immediate area. Notwithstanding the biodiversity, noise and highways shortcomings of this current application, the scheme is not considered to result in any benefits materially equivalent to those under application 15/04312/FUL.

Informative:-

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

In this instance:  the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit.

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