HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY Monday 03 September 2007 Case Officer Andy Grandfield

SITE: Land at Bubb Lane, Burnetts Lane, West End, Southampton, SO30 2HH

Ref. F/07/60158 Received: 22/05/2007 (22/08/2007)

APPLICANT: Crematoria Management Limited

PROPOSAL: Construction of crematorium with new access, ancillary landscaping & formation of new cycleway/footpath, off site highway works, external lighting & change of use of agricultural land to gardens of remembrance

AMENDMENTS: None

RECOMMENDATION:

Subject to (i) The views of the Head of Environmental Health on the stack height; (ii) receipt of contributions towards off site highway works within Tollbar Way/Moorgreen Road and Public Art.

PERMIT

CONDITIONS AND REASONS:

(1) The development hereby permitted must be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

(2) Plans and particulars showing the proposals for all the following aspects of the development must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. The development must then accord with these approved details. Reason: In order that these matters may be considered by the Local Planning Authority. a: The ground floor levels above ordnance datum of all buildings. b: The alignment, height and materials of all walls, fences and other means of enclosure

c: The details and layout of foul sewers and surface water drains. d: The provision to be made for car park/road lighting and/or external lighting. e: The provision to be made for the storage of refuse. f: Proposed ground levels and relationship to existing levels both within the site and on immediately adjoining land.

(3) Details and samples of all external facing and roofing materials must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The development must then accord with these approved details. Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of any building is satisfactory.

(4) Details of Contractor's site hut location and any areas designated for the storage of building materials and parking of contractor's vehicles must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The development must then accord with these approved details. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 site huts and building materials must not be stored elsewhere on the site without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that natural features are not damaged.

(5) The existing hedging and trees indicated in green on the submitted plan must be retained and strengthened with additional planting. Reason: In the interests of amenity and protecting the character of the area..

(6) Before the development commences, or by such later date as the Local Planning Authority may determine, a landscape scheme comprising planting, details of hard surfacing and means of enclosure must be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme must include a planting specification and schedule, and shall indicate the position, size, number, planting density and species of shrubs and trees. A seed or turf specification must be provided for areas to be grassed. The planting scheme must include details of phasing, timing and provision for management and maintenance during the first ten years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory.

(7) The landscape scheme must be completed within 12 months from the completion of the building shell, or by such later date as the Local Planning Authority may determine. Any trees or plants which die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased during the first five years must be replaced during the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory.

(8) The development shall accord with the recommendations set out in the Arboricultural Report prepared by Treecare and dated 18th September 2000. Reason: In the interest of protecting the health and appearance of the trees.

(9) No clearance of vegetation including soil stripping shall occur on the site during the bird-nesting season (between 31st March and 31st August inclusive in any given year), unless supervised by an appropriately qualified ecologist. Reason: To prevent harm to breeding birds

(10) Prior to the commencement of development the site shall be resurveyed for features of ecological interest prior to any construction activities and a written report produced and submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The report shall include suitable mitigation measures to address any findings in accordance with a written procedure to be agreed with the local planning authority. The development must accord with these approved details. Reason: In the interest of projecting and preserving the ecology of the site.

(11) No development shall take place until the applicant has undertaken a phased programme of archaeological work agreed in advance with the local planning authority. This should take the form of a programme of trial trenching to fully assess the archaeological potential of the site and to inform any further archaeological mitigation work required. This archaeological work should be undertaken by a suitably qualified archaeological contractor and would be subject to the submission and approval of a suitable Written Scheme of Investigation prior to work commencing. Reason: To protect the archaeological interest of the area.

(12) No burning of materials obtained by site clearance or from any other source to take place on this site during the construction and fitting out process without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenity.

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

(14) No development shall commence until details of the off site highway works, which involve the construction of a new access onto Bubb Lane to serve the site, a footway/cycleway on Bubb Lane and Tollbar Way and the provision of the pedestrian refuge on Tollbar Way and on Bubb Lane, have been approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with the highway authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the off-site highway works have been implemented in accordance with the approved plans and to the satisfaction of the local planning authority in consultation with the highway authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

(15) No external plant or equipment shall be installed or used without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. Any external plant designed for use in connection with the building must have been provided with its sound mitigation measures necessary to ensure that the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring premises is protected. Reason: In the interest of amenity.

(16) Prior to commencement of development a Travel Management Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The Travel Management Plan shall include details of proposed off-site directional signage and directional information to be provided to mourners and Funeral Directors. The development must accord with these details. Reason: In the interest of amenity.

(17) Prior to occupation of the development the land allocated for a cycleway/footpath as an extension of the Strawberry Trail within the site shall be dedicated to the Highway Authority for the future provision of the cycleway/footpath. Reason: In the interest securing provision for public access along The Strawberry Trail.

(18) The development hereby permitted must not be brought into use until the areas shown on the approved plan for the parking of vehicles shall have been made available, surfaced and marked out, and the areas must be retained in a condition to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, and reserved for that purpose at all times. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

(19) Measures to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to prevent mud being deposited on the public highway by vehicles leaving the site must be implemented during the whole of the construction period. No vehicle shall leave the site unless its wheels have been sufficiently cleaned to prevent mud being deposited on the public highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Note to Applicant: Please see attached the letter from the Environment Agency dated 18 January 2007 which sets out a number of Planning Informatives.

Note to Applicant: It is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions and any obligations attached to this permission, the proposed development is acceptable because it will not materially harm the character of the area, the amenity of neighbours, highway safety, nature conservation features and it is in accordance with the policies and proposals of the development plan, as listed below, and after due regard to all other relevant material considerations the local planning authority is of the opinion that permission should be granted.

The following development plan policies are relevant to this decision and the conditions attached to it:

Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 Review: [ED3,T2,T4,T5,T6,T12,C1,C2,E6] Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 [1.CO,15.CO,18.CO,59.BE,60.BE,62.BE,63.BE,100.T,101.T,102.T,103.T,104.T, 186.IN,190.IN,191.IN]

This application has been referred to Committee because it is controversial.

Description of Application

1. The application is for the construction of a single chapel crematorium with seating for 96 people and car parking for 74 vehicles, ancillary landscaping, new access from Bubb Lane and formation of a new off site footpath/cycleway and traffic island with a change of use from agricultural land to garden of remembrance.

2. The single storey building measures 35m (plus 5m for the Porte Cochere) by 17.5m, with a maximum height of 9m. It would comprise of a staggered and varied ridge line, and would be constructed of brick and clay tile. The fenestration is designed to restrict views south and direct views through large windows to a small courtyard on the northeast side. The proposal includes a small office area with ancillary rooms which coordinates the day to day running of the site.

3. The application has been submitted with the following supporting information.

• Supporting Statement • Assessment of the Need for a Crematorium • Summary of Alternative Site Investigations. • Design and Access Statement which incorporates arboricultural report, ecological appraisal, air quality information, noise information • Landscape and Visual Assessment Report • Traffic Statement with traffic survey and traffic summary • Statement on Chromium in cremator flue gases • Siting of crematorium • Effects of prevailing winds • Community Statement

4. A summary of this information is set out below.

Summary of Supporting Information

(A) Supporting Statement

5. Application has been submitted by Crematoria Management Ltd who is wholly owned by Westerleigh. The applicants have been looking for a suitable site in the Borough for seven years. They own 10 other crematoria within the country and conduct 11,000 cremations/year. The search is governed by the criteria set out in the Crematorium Act 1902, guidance set out in the “Recommendations on the Establishment of Crematoria” and Operational Control guidance under the Environmental Protection Act Part 1 Feb 1991 (PG5/2(04)). Guidance and regulations require the cremators to be 200 yards from housing and 50 yards from public highways. Fourteen of the last twenty crematoria have been built in Green Belt locations.

6. The proposal is for a chapel that holds up to 96 seats with standing space for up to 150 more people. Car parking is provided in 75 spaces which equates to 2/3rds seating capacity which accords with best practice. Services are primarily to be between 1000 and 1530, but could in busy periods be between 0930 and 1630 Monday to Friday, with 1000 services the first year increasing to1600 services by year ten. A cremation on average is attended by 15–20 cars, whilst a committal which accounts for 30% of the proposed services is usually attended by 5–6 cars. A licence is required from Head of Environmental Health to run a crematorium.

7. Each service would be allocated a 45 minute time slot which allows for 10 minutes travel, a 20/25 minute service and a 10 minute departure from the building. The number of services would be six per day rising to 8-9 at its very busiest period by year ten. The layout has been planned so that it facilitates separation of mourners arriving and departing if there is an overlap between services.

(B) Need for a Crematorium

8. This analysed the existing crematorium at Southampton which is the closest to the Borough of Eastleigh, and as such the facility most likely used by the Borough’s residents. It is the fifth busiest in the country. It operates with two chapels, the west chapel having a 30 minute service (up to 24 people/service) and the east chapel a 40 minute service (up to 80 people/service). In total is carried out 3659 services in 2004. Due to the high level of demand Southampton crematorium could not switch to a 45 minute service and still deliver the same number of services. The applicant states that Southampton and Porchester, the two nearest crematoria, would operate at 37% over capacity if 45 minute services were provided. Only 5% of the services were outside of the hours of 1030–1530. The applicant believes mourners have to wait 2–3 days longer than the national average as the Southampton crematorium is operating beyond capacity, with limited parking and some highway problems being experienced on busy days.

9. Eastleigh is one of the largest local authorities not to have a crematorium. With a population circa 118,000 with a death rate of 0.94% this equates to a death rate of approximately 1100 death per year. With cremations accounting for 72% of all deaths, this equates to a current need in Eastleigh for 1000 cremations a year.

10. With a predicted 5% increase in death rates by 2019 the need for cremation services, which currently exists at 72.45% of all services, will increase 0.3% annually.

11. The proposed crematorium would reduce travel times and distances significantly from those currently experienced by Borough residents. The proposed facility would be a more attractive and modern crematorium and would operate a 45 minute session which is considered more sympathetic and flexible to the mourners’ needs. Copies of letters are enclosed from local

funeral directors and undertakers supporting the need for the proposed crematorium.

(C) Site search for a new crematorium

12. Generic criteria for site selection include a requirement to be 200 yards from residential properties and 50 yards from public highway. The site should be a minimum of 6 acres and maximum of 12 acres. It should be close to a main road with access off a minor road. It should not be accessed through an industrial area, business park or residential area. It should benefit from existing landscaping, be generally flat with good public transport links, near lines of communication and major populations areas.

13. For Eastleigh the search criteria also required a site mid Borough and outside of other local plan designations/restrictions. An extensive search of the borough has been undertaken with detailed consideration given to many sites.

14. Fifteen general areas have been considered and discounted.

Area 1 Hamble airfield – a large site that is very open with little landscaping. The site has poor visibility and is accessed over a narrow railway bridge with no minor road suitable for access. It is too southerly within the Borough. Some land is within the strategic gap.

Area 2 Long Common Boorley Green – 7 sites assessed. No suitable land has been identified with large areas either being occupied by the hotel and golf course or too close to residential properties. Access roads off Winchester Road are too narrow.

Area 3 Land West of Horton Heath – 5 sites considered include Fir Tree Lane – inappropriate access; Blind Lane – access too narrow and too close to residential properties; Chalcroft Farm area – open land with a single carriageway access, close to narrow railway bridge which would affect corteges; Moorgreen Farm – poor access, bad sight lines; Snakemoor Lane – small site, poor access, conflict with nature conservation legislation & policy.

Area 4 South of Bishopstoke – sites considered include land off Allington Lane – too close to residential properties, narrow access, close to SSSI and scramble track; Adjacent to Bishopstoke – too close to residential properties and accessed through housing estate, South of railway line – too close to SSSI.

Area 5 North of Stoke Park Wood & East of Stoke Common – not central within the borough with poor access links, close to residential properties, dominance of power cables

Area 6 Land north of Mortimer’s Lane – poor access, poorly located within borough and land occupied by golf course.

Area 7 East of Hedge End/South of Botley – much of area designated as local gap or open space. Four possible sites considered but discounted; 2no. sites at Church Lane/Brook Lane – poor access; East of Sovereign Drive – access through residential area; Kings Copse Avenue – designated public open space.

Area 8 South of Hedge End –mostly protected by local gap, strategic gap, public open space and SSSI. Overall difficult access.

Area 9 NE of Bursledon/North of River Hamble – local gap, poor access and flooding levels.

Area 10 Bursledon/Old Netley – too close to residential areas.

Area 11 Old Bursledon - too close to residential areas; conservation area, flood risk, SSSI.

Area 12/13 East of Netley/North of Hamble – poor access, close to residential.

Area 14 Old Netley – Strategic gaps.

Area 15 Windover Roundabout – Strategic gap and SSSI.

Cemeteries at Bishopstoke, Eastleigh, and Chandlers Ford also discounted for being too small.

(D) Design & Access Statement

15. This contains general background information on the issues and design chosen. The building is proposed to be constructed out of clay tile and brick, with laminate timber columns and post and beam roof structure used in the Porte Cochere. The crematorium plant would be installed to the latest and highest filtration specification. New directional signs would be used and funeral directors would be encouraged to use Tollbar Way for access. A new footpath/cycleway would be provided to the site and land dedicated for a future expansion of the Strawberry Trail. Drainage is from a stand alone foul drainage system with soakaways and attenuation pond for surface water.

16. Within the Design & Access Statement the following documents are included.

(a) Arboricultural Report which contains survey information on the main trees, details the location of all others, provides a tree constraints plan, protective fencing, arboricultural impact assessment and method statement. (b) Ecological Appraisal – Overall the site is of negligible ecological value and is not subject to any nature conservation designations. The report considers the following areas – hedgerow (which involves the loss of a small part of ‘important’ hedgerow), bats (not affected but will need to design lighting scheme sympathetically), badgers (no signs on site but recommends further survey work before development), nesting birds (unlikely to be affected but ground clearance/top soil strip to be between September and February), reptiles (none surveyed but loss of potential habitat at the access would be minimal therefore recommend ecologist supervises clearance works), other protected species (none identified). The agricultural land is not of high quality.

(c) Planning Report – sets out policy constraints for this site and how the development would not compromise this.

(d) Air/Waste/Noise – Waste from the Mercury Abatement system is collected on site and transported to an approved disposal site. This equates to 1 drum of waste every 6/8 weeks. Report contains details on various air borne emissions produced which are neutralised to appropriate standards by the flue gas treatment system and mercury abatement plant. A noise survey of an existing crematorium was undertaken by a consultant who confirms the external and internal noise levels are not intrusive on the site or wider area.

(e) Report of Highways – sets out design options for the junction, gateway features and cycle/pedestrian provision.

(f) Statement on the Westerleigh Group – specialist in sole provision of crematoria and cemeteries and have a number of agreements with local authorities to provide crematoria.

(g) Woodland Burial – 0.5 acres to be set aside for up to 200 burials. Based on current rates this would be 2 burials initially and up to 10 by year 10.

(E) Landscape & Visual Assessment Report

17. This report identifies the site as being within an area identified in the strategic Land Management Plan, Hampshire Landscape: Strategy for the Future (2000) as a ‘mixed farmland and woodland landscape type’ which lies at the edge of the ‘South Hampshire Lowland and Heath Rural Landscape Character Area’.

Within the 1997 Eastleigh Landscape Appraisal the site is on the edge of the ‘Horton Heath undulating farmland landscape character area’. The agricultural value and quality of the site has been assessed against the criteria set by Natural England and is Grade 3b.

18. The report assesses the views of the site from the surrounding area and finds the site is observed against a backdrop of trees and close to the busy Tollbar Way. Views from some directions are restricted by hedging, trees and general topography.

19. A landscape master plan is included which protects the majority of the existing trees, proposes hedgerows to be strengthened, new perimeter planting, construction of 1.5m high landscaped mounds, evergreen and deciduous tree planting and ornamental planting close to the building.

(F) Traffic Statement, Survey and Summary

20. Traffic summary states 95% of travel is between 1000 and 1600 hours (outside normal peak hour travel time). Initially 4 funerals a day (1000/yr) rising to 6-8 on average (1600/yr). At absolute busiest 9 funerals would happen. Research by Westerleigh suggests 15 cars/funeral which equates to 60 daily total trips at commencement rising to a peak of 135 at maturity. This generates a low steady pattern of traffic assisted by the funeral interval cycle with visitors for different funerals not arriving and leaving at the same time. Majority of mourners are expected to use well know, sign posted routes. Summary traffic movement plans have been produced. Daily impact on Tollbar Way is forecast at 1.1% increase on traffic numbers, with the greatest impact being in the middle of the day (11-1200) of 4%-4.1% on Tollbar Way. There will be no impact on Burnetts Lane and a forecast 2% impact (4 cars) in hourly traffic on Moorgreen Road. The development’s 135 additional trips represent about 2% of the average network daily flow.

21. The traffic statement provides general information on the hours of use and describes the general transport network. Travel planning would encourage mourners to use Tollbar Way and public transport. Directional signs would be erected, leaflets produced and information on routing added to the website. Access has been designed to reflect this but does allow for occasional visitors to arrive from the west (Bubb Lane).

22. Traffic surveys were carried out at two locations north and south of the junction of Bubb Lane and Tollbar Way, monitoring traffic movements in both a northerly and southerly direction, for 24 hours a day over a 7 day period. This is summarised as follows:

Traffic movements along Tollbar Way/Bubb Lane

Total Motor Cars LGV HGV Bus 85%ile Average Ave vehicles cycles speed peak peak over mph movements PM 7 days AM – 5day - 5day

Site 1 – North of Tollbar Way/Bubb Lane junction – north bound traffic 45576 0.8% 86% 2.8% 10.3% 0.1 46 499 622 %

Site 1 – North of Tollbar Way/Bubb Lane junction – south bound traffic 42845 0.8% 92.5 3.9% 2.6% 0.2 46 569 548 % %

Site 2 – South of Tollbar Way/Bubb Lane junction – north bound traffic 43189 0.7% 91.2 5.6% 2.1% 0.4 45.3 485 592 % %

Site 2 – South of Tollbar Way/Bubb Lane junction – south bound traffic 41503 0.7% 90% 6.7% 2.1% 0.4 45.5 485 592 %

23. The busiest days on the network were Wednesday and Friday with traffic speeds being slightly higher on Saturdays and Sundays and between 0400– 0500 and after 2000 hours.

24. Additional surveys were carried out of the peak time junction movements on one day (23/11/06), for both Tollbar Way/Bubb Lane junction and the Bubb Lane/Burnetts Lane junction. The survey was conducted during AM and PM peaks, as well as between 1100 and 1300.

Bubb Lane/Burnetts Lane Junction total movements between 0800 – 0930, 1100 – 1300, 16:30 – 1800

Direction of movement past the junction Light Heavy Total Vehicles Vehicles Burnetts Lane to Bubb Lane towards Tollbar Way 177 42 219 Burnetts Lane to Bubb Lane towards M’green 319 9 328 Rd Bubb Lane to Burnetts Lane from M’Green Rd 279 8 287 Bubb Lane to Tollbar Way from M’Green Rd 347 3 350 Bubb Lane to M’Green Rd from Tollbar Way 496 13 509 Bubb Lane to Burnetts Lane from Tollbar Way 205 62 267

25. This shows of the 547 vehicles turning out of Burnetts Lane 51 vehicles (9.3%) were HV, 219 turned towards the site entrance leading to Tollbar Way (40%) and of those 42 (19.2%) were HV.

26. That of the 637 vehicles using Bubb Lane from Moorgreen Road 350 (55%) passed the site heading to Tollbar Way, of which 3 (0.86%) were HV.

27. That of the 776 vehicles passing the site from Tollbar Way 75 (9.7%) were HGVs.

Bubb Lane/Tollbar Way junction total movements between 0800 – 0930, 1100 – 1300, 16:30 – 1800

Direction of movement past the junction Light Heavy Total Vehicles Vehicles Bubb Lane from H/Heath to Tollbar Way (Retail 1856 89 1945 Park direction) Bubb Lane from H/Heath to Bubb Lane (M’green Rd 415 20 435 direction) Bubb Lane to Bubb Lane towards H/Heath 333 7 340 Bubb Lane to Tollbar Way towards Retail Park 250 43 293 Tollbar Way from Retail Park turning to Bubb Lane 303 48 351 (M’Green Rd) Tollbar Way from Retail Park to Bubb Lane 1880 78 1958 (H/Heath)

28. This information illustrates that of the 4689 vehicles driving along Bubb Lane from the Horton Heath direction and along Tollbar Way from the retail park direction 235 were HV (5%) and 786 of the total vehicles (16.77%) turned into Bubb Lane passing the crematorium site. Further, of the 5322 vehicles surveyed 633 (11.9%) turned out of Bubb Lane onto the Tollbar Way/Bubb Lane main road at this junction.

29. Predicted traffic movements associated with the proposal has been calculated on the basis of an average of 15 vehicles per cremations with a higher average of 18 vehicles per cremation on busier days (usually Friday). Vehicles arrive over a 22 minute period and departures over a 30 minute period. 95% of the daily traffic movements are anticipated to take place between 10.00 and 16.00 hours, with only 5% estimated to use Bubb Lane south. On commencement an average of 4-6 cremations would take place a day but by year 10, it would be between 8 and 9 cremations/day. At year 10 the predicted number of average cars attending the site would be 135 cars/day.

30. To alleviate this highway impact contributions towards a gateway feature on Tollbar Way and additional traffic calming on Moorgreen Road would be made to HCC. To improve pedestrian access to the site a new footpath/cycleway would be provided from Tollbar Way whilst land within the site would be dedicated as public highway for an extension of the Strawberry Trail.

(G) Summary of previous Planning Decision

31. Extracts and summary of some applications form crematoria Westerleigh have been involved with.

(H) Company Portfolio

32. Includes a summary of their existing facilities, location and photos.

(I) Community Statement

33. Sets out the pre-application communication the applicant has had with local residents, Parish Councils and elected Members which includes letters, door- to-door visits and a public exhibition.

Site Area

34. 3.22 ha

Residential Development (Net)

35. N/A

Topography

36. The site slopes gently down from the northern corner of the field dropping by 3m in a south easterly and south westerly direction. The northwest boundary is bound by a railway embankment with ground levels rising by up to 3m from that of the field.

Trees

37. The northwest railway embankment comprises a mix of mature deciduous woodland, consisting of oaks and silver birches. The applicant has identified this as ancient woodland, with remnants of the woodland extending along the southeast boundary with Bubb Lane.

Boundary Treatment

38. In general the northeast boundary is defined by the railway embankment and woodland, although there is no definitive demarcation on site. Similarly the northwest boundary is undefined as the proposal intends to subdivide the field, however further northwest the boundary with Burnetts Lane is defined by a 2m hedgerow. The southwest boundary is defined by an existing hedgerow between the fields, although there are gateways or openings to allow passage from one field to the next. The southeast boundary is defined by the tree and hedgerow, together with a drainage ditch, adjacent to Bubb Lane.

Site Characteristics

39. The site is an uncultivated agricultural field, of Grade 3b quality, which has been used for the grazing of livestock. The site is bounded by Burnetts Lane, Bubb Lane, the railway embankment and a field. A Right of Way, Footpath 13, passes through the woodland along the north east boundary of the site.

Character of Locality

40. The site is located within the countryside as allocated within the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011. The immediate area is rural with scattered houses to the west and north. The medium density residential estate of Grange Park is located approximately 125m to the southeast of the site. The site is bound on two sides by minor roads, Bubb Lane and Burnetts Lane, whilst the busy Tollbar Way is 100m from the entrance to the site.

Relevant Planning History

41. Previous application for crematorium withdrawn in January.

Representations Received

42. 25 letters of objection on the following grounds

• Highway safety – increased traffic, inadequate infrastructure, congestion, increased use of Tollbar Way/Bubb Lane junction, conflict with HGVs, increased risk of accidents with slow moving funeral traffic, impact of pedestrians, no pedestrian crossing/conflict with walk to school initiative, poor sight lines. • Atmospheric pollution and odours from crematorium – ash, mercury, dioxins. • No justification for another crematorium and no documentation on the website on the need for one. • Too close to housing. • Noise, air pollution from increased traffic. • Enforceability should there be abnormal and visible emissions. • Transportation of hazardous products from the site. • Visually intrusive. • Potential loss of fine trees and hedging. • Impact on nature conservation features. • Contravenes Strategic Gap and countryside policies and would set a precedent. • Concerns short time given to neighbours to comment on the proposals. • How can it be resubmitted after negative views expressed first time • Inaccurate figures on average attendance. • Not all the crematorium and its ancillary buildings/grounds used of scattering of ashes are outside the 200 yard exclusion zone. • Close to a school which is contrary to the Federation of British Crematorium Authorities recommendations. • Inappropriate for funeral cars to pass the school. • Signage to discourage use of Moorgreen Road/Burnetts Lane will not deter locals. • No scope for second chapel.

• Wish to see land used for housing or recreation for young people.

43. One petition of 16 signatures generally objecting to the principle of the crematorium.

Consultation Responses

44. Head of Regeneration and Planning Policy - No objection.

45. Policy: The application site is located outside the urban edge and is therefore subject to the principal countryside protection policy of the Local Plan, policy 1.CO. Policy 1.CO establishes a presumption against development unless it is:

• necessary for agricultural, forestry, or horticultural purposes; • for an outdoor recreational use, or required as ancillary to such a use and the scale and design of the proposal would not harm the character of the locality; • essential for the provision of a public utility service.

46. In support of their proposal the applicants have set out their justification for their area of search for the development and a detailed assessment of 15 areas that could accommodate the crematorium within their defined area of search. These areas have been assessed against a range of site requirements, including:

• No less than 200 yards from residential dwellings (a requirement under the Cremation Act of 1902); • 8-10 acres in size; • close to a main road; • close to main population centres; • close to public transport; • the land must be flat; • the site must be well screened with existing landscaping.

47. Of all the sites assessed, only the Bubb Lane location was able to meet all of these criteria.

48. The development site adjoins the boundary of the strategic gap between West End and Hedge End. Strategic gap policy 2.CO would require that development did not physically or visually diminish the gap. Policy 18.CO requires that development must not have an adverse impact on the intrinsic character of the landscape.

49. A crematorium is not a form of development that would normally accord with the terms of policy 1.CO of the Local Plan as being appropriate to a countryside location. The Local Plan does not, however, allocate any site for a crematorium, nor does it set out any criteria for the siting of a crematorium.

50. It is clear from the criterion that requires a crematorium to be at least 200 yards from the nearest dwelling that a location within the urban edge is unlikely to be found. A crematorium could be seen as akin to a public utility service, development for which, if essential and incapable of being located within the urban edge, is permissible in the countryside.

51. It seems to me that the supporting information with this application establishes a real need for this facility. In my view it also provides a sound justification for the area of search for the development and for the choice of this particular site as the most appropriate location for this crematorium. On balance therefore, it is my view that, in principle, this development should be regarded as an appropriate exception to the normal presumption against inappropriate development in the countryside.

52. The application site is relatively open when viewed from the roads and public footpaths to the west and across the narrow area of the strategic gap from Tollbar Way to the south. The site is bordered to the north east by woodland bordering the deep cutting of the Eastleigh to Fareham railway line and this would form a backdrop to the development.

53. The application proposals show a relatively small proportion of the site occupied by roads and buildings with extensive areas of landscaping and tree planting. The Council’s Landscape Designer in his comments of 12 January 2007on the earlier, withdrawn, application for the crematorium stated that: “the location could accommodate these proposals without significant detrimental landscape impact and the submitted report [landscape and visual impact assessment] confirms this”. I consider that these comments remain relevant to this revised application which shows a more carefully thought out layout and improved landscaping proposals.

54. My only concern about the impact of the development relates to the urbanising influence of the complexity of the layout and the amount of hard surfacing at the entrance to the site. Efforts to reduce the scale of these works would be valuable.

55. Accordingly, I do not consider that the proposals would harm the intrinsic character of the landscape and they therefore accord with policy 18.CO of the Local Plan. Indeed, as the new planting matures the development is likely to positively enhance the landscape of the immediate locality and would not be intrusive in the wider landscape in any way. As such, and noting that the development is not actually located within the strategic gap, I do not consider that the development would physically or visually diminish the gap to such an extent as to warrant an objection to the development.

56. In terms of design, the Council’s Architect in his comments of 22 June 2007, advised that in his view the applicant had made an acceptable response to the earlier concerns raised about the layout, design and appearance of the development.

57. In summary, whilst the proposal is located within the countryside where there is normally a presumption against inappropriate development, these proposals justify an exception to policy as a matter of principle. The potential impact of the proposal on the landscape and on the gap is not, in my view, sufficiently adverse to warrant an objection and is potentially positive in a number of respects. I therefore have no policy objection to the proposals.

58. Design: The design of the building is an acceptable response to the issues that were raised on the withdrawn scheme. The Architects Panel commented on the small size of the waiting room which has to serve a 96 seat chapel. The extensive use of conifers at the entrance, when they mature may produce a rather drab and unwelcoming environment. The use of a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees may be more appropriate. Conditions requiring samples of facing brick and roof tile for approval should be made.

59. Head of Environmental Health – no objection subject to conditions on hours of construction and external plant and the chimney height being increased to 3m above the ridge height. (Additional information has been received from the applicant stating the chimney does not need to be increased in height – Head of Environmental Health views are sought on this aspect).

60. Crematoria are licensed by Local Authorities which determines the appropriate controls to protect the environment by preventing emissions or reducing them to an acceptable level. Crematoria have been regulated by Local Authorities since 1991, but from 2003 the regulations governing crematoria changed to the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations. In 2004 new guidance was issued to Local Authorities and tighter controls were placed on crematoria under the new regulations. The new controls related to emissions to air of certain new pollutants and tightening of existing emission limits.

61. There are now emission limits for the pollutants mercury and dioxins (PCDD/F) which were not previously included. Emission limits for carbon monoxide, organic compounds and particulate matter from cremated remains reduction plant remain the same and emissions for hydrogen chloride and total particulate matter have been tightened.

62. From 1 October 2006 all new crematoria must meet these emission limits. Crematoria are required to monitor their emissions either on a continuous basis and/or annually depending on the pollutant. This ensures that the emission limits are met and any problems are highlighted and can be dealt with.

63. If planning permission is granted for a crematorium, the operators will usually apply for a ‘permit’ from the Local Authority under the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations, shortly after. In the application the operator of the crematoria will state how they intend to control and monitor emissions, deal with unforeseen circumstances and assess any potential environmental impacts.

64. The application will be considered by the Environmental Health Service as well as consulting the Primary Care Trust, Natural England (where the crematoria is close to a nature conservation site), and the general public and other interested parties. If a permit is issued, inspections of a crematorium are made at least once or twice per year. An annual risk assessment of the crematoria, taking into consideration any complaints or pollution incidents and confidence in management, is carried out. This will determine how frequently the crematorium will be inspected. In the first year there are likely to be 2 or 3 inspections carried out. Inspections are also carried out following a complaint.

65. The operators of the proposed crematorium at Bubb Lane have already submitted a draft of their application for a permit and have met with the Environmental Health Service to discuss their proposal. The height of the chimney, in conjunction with the temperature and speed of the emission as it exits the chimney, should ensure that the emissions are carried away rather than falling to the ground. The operator has also provided an estimate of the emissions expected from the crematorium which are expected to improve on the emission limits set.

66. The permit will also include conditions relating to odour and visible emissions. Commonly conditions state that there must be no offensive odour beyond the site boundary. The operator of the crematorium will be required to make frequent (and at least daily) checks for visible and odorous emissions and keep records of these. If an emission is recorded the operator must immediately take corrective action.

67. Most visible, odorous, and other polluting emissions can be prevented or minimised by good combustion. The primary combustion chamber of a cremator is designed to operate at around 800°C. There is also a secondary combustion chamber where gases from the main chamber will pass through and are heated to 850°C. This will help to reduce/’burn-off’ the levels of most of the pollutants. After this the emissions are cooled and a chemical additive is introduced to the gases which adsorbs or reduces the pollutants and then passes through a filter bag where the dust and additive is caught. The dust/additive is then sent for waste disposal. The cleaned emission is then sent to atmosphere. Due to this cleaning process there should be no large particles of dust or ash emitted and other pollutants should be considerably reduced.

68. Head of Countryside and Recreation

69. Nature Conservation: No objection. The new footpath/cycleway is set back from the ancient semi-natural woodland and the access has been designed to pass through the modern hedge thus avoiding the more ancient hedgerow section. Protected species are unlikely to be affected. Glow worms are not protected species. A condition is requested to ensure the hedgerow planting is undertaken to a specification to be agreed.

70. Trees: No comments received. On previous application the officer raised no objection subject to method statement being conditioned.

71. Sustainability – No comments received

72. Head of Arts – No objection. I would be keen to talk to the developers about the opportunities for Public Art in more detail as the revised drawings currently show no direct reference to any public art. It would be helpful to know what the developers intentions are with regard to this.

73. As you are aware, there are various routes which the developer could pursue with regard to their Public Art contributions. They could engage and project manage the artist themselves or they may prefer the project to be managed by EBC’s Public Arts Officer. Which ever way is chosen, it is recommended that an artist is engaged early on in detail design phase to try and create a comforting and harmonious atmosphere so the grounds are a contemplative waiting space and the chapel area is uplifting. Contributions are sought.

74. Head of Transportation and Engineering – No objection.

75. Policy: The traffic issues have been analysed at some length and it is evident that there is not much in the way of impact and no major concerns on highway safety. No objection.

76. Development Control: Needs to be referred to HCC to secure off site highway works. Need clarification if 3m wide cycleway/footpath is to be provided as part of the development.

77. Hampshire County Council Environment (Highways Development Control) – No objection subject to financial contributions towards traffic management on Tollbar Way (between junction of Maunsell Way and Bubb Lane) and implementation of off site highway works. The supporting statement has not looked at the highway issues specifically, however the operation of the crematorium will be outside of the peak hours, therefore is not likely to have a significant impact on the local network. In order to ensure the vehicles do not use Moorgreen Road as a main route to access the site I suggest the applicant makes financial contributions towards traffic management measure on Moorgreen Road. HCC has recently implemented traffic calming scheme on Moorgreen Road in order to slow traffic and deter vehicles from using the route as a ‘rat run’. Since implementation HCC have had feedback from residents and further measures have been identified. A contribution from the applicant would ensure these enhancements can be implemented as soon as possible, ensuring the development would not impact on Moorgreen Road.

78. Concerns have been raised regarding traffic speed on Tollbar Way and the possibility of a gateway feature has been discussed previously. Contributions are therefore sought towards traffic management measures on Tollbar Way.

79. In addition to the off-site works proposed it is recommended that a pedestrian refuse is included on Tollbar Way, which will also act as a traffic calming feature. These works will need to be implemented under a S278 Agreement, and as such a Grampian condition is recommended.

80. Hampshire County Council Environment (Countryside Planning) – No objection and welcome the footpath/cycleway through the site.

81. Hampshire County Council Archaeologist – No objection subject to a phased programme of archaeological work be undertaken in advance of the development. This should take the form of a programme of trial trenching to fully assess the archaeological potential of the site and to inform any further archaeological mitigation work required. This archaeological work should be undertaken by a suitably qualified archaeological contractor and would be subject to the submission and approval of a suitable Written Scheme of Investigation prior to work commencing.

82. Hampshire County Council Rights of Way – No comments received

83. Hampshire County Council Planning – No comment to make

84. Health Protection Agency – No comments received on this application. Previously they advised: Unable to make comment on the location of the facility provided it is not within 200 yards of the nearest dwelling. We are unable to comment on the land use change or design. The application will not be within 200 yard boundary and providing the operator installs equipment in accordance to guidelines and regulations, we can make no further comment at this stage.

85. Southern Water – No adverse comment on this application.

86. Natural England – No objection. This will not have a significant adverse effect on the nearby SSSI and we are not aware of any protected species on this site. We support recommendations for the retention and enhancement of as much of the existing woodland and hedgerow as possible and for lighting in these areas to be of a low intensity and sensitively placed. Clearance of trees and areas of scrub should avoid the bird breeding seasons, March to August, inclusive to reduce the likely harm to breeding birds. We also recommend that you seek the views of the Borough’s Biodiversity Officer.

87. Southern Gas Networks – There is a pipe in the vicinity and S.G.N. has contacted the developer to initiate discussions as may be appropriate in all the circumstances. SGN request details of decision on application.

88. Environment Agency – No objection but would wish planning informatives to be added related to storage of hazardous waste, drainage & pollution

89. Eastleigh & District Disability Forum – There are very limited bus services and no accessible buses in use or planned. The proposed footpath from site to Burnetts Lane is heavily screened by trees. Disabled parking spaces are designated but due to their positioning, close to the entrance, could cause conflicts of priority with hearses. Disabled parking should be made available for staff use only. There should be interior access from the waiting room. Any

traffic calming measures in and around the site should avoid the use of full width speed ramps.

90. The path leading from the floral tribute area to the car park is very long. Provision could be made for a path leading directly from the chapel exit back to the disabled parking bays. This should be at least 1.5m wide. The proposed water feature in this area should be at a height visible to those with visual impairment. The path leading to the accessible WC should be a minimum width of 1.5m and not 0.5m as is currently shown. All walkways in the area should be this width. The use of bollards and cobbles should be avoided. The ground to be used for the garden of remembrance is of a sloping nature. Flat, unobstructed paths should be provided with no wood edged stepping.

91. All areas should be well lit especially walkways and around the chapel. All signage should be high visibility, non reflective and placed at the correct height.

92. Winchester & Eastleigh Architects Panel – Comments awaited.

93. Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment – due to limited resources we are unable to comment. We have been in contact with the South East Regional Design Panel to recommend that they consider putting this before panel.

94. South East Regional Design Panel – No comments received

95. Campaign for the Protection of Rural England – We have no adverse comments to make. It appears to be a very sensitive scheme, carefully planned and sited.

96. Hampshire Wildlife Trust – No comments received

97. The Woodland Trust – No objection. The proposals would not have any significant effect on the Semi Natural Ancient Woodland.

98. District Forestry Commission – No comment received.

99. The Ramblers Association – As there appear to be no works that would affect Footpath 13 and the proposed cycleway is in addition to this footpath this association has no objection. The central reservation is welcomed but road should be graded to a 30mph road.

100. Eastleigh Crime Reduction Officer – No objection to layout or building. The site appears to be well located and the building itself designed to be fit for purpose. No specification on doors and windows and this may be something the architect wishes to discuss at a later date.

101. Hampshire Fire Officer – Access for fire fighting is acceptable.

102. Moorgreen Road Residents Association – Reiterate previous objections on grounds of Highway Safety & traffic impact: poor visibility, access should be from Tollbar Way only, increase traffic of approximately 1200 cars plus Dowds Farm development, Combined with impact of Rose Bowl traffic, Moorgreen Road is busy and congested with school and traffic calming, Conflict slow moving cortege and HGVs, Moorgreen Road/Burnetts Lane unsafe, benefits to a few should not be at expense of existing residents, attendance would be 70- 120 cars per cremation, inadequate car parking. Inappropriate to have hearses passing the school daily, Concerns over emission

103. Burnetts Lane Residents Association – object on the following grounds; highway safety, emissions, use of Burnetts Lane and Moorgreen Road leading to danger for cars, cyclist and pedestrians. Conflict with HGVs, not centrally located so will serve residents from mostly outside of the Borough, inadequate car parking leading to cars parking on Bubb Lane/Tollbar Way

104. Hedge End Town Council – No objection in principle but serious concerns remain in relation to the access problems.

105. West End Parish Council – Object on grounds of access to the site, traffic problems in the vicinity and no reference that the recent updated DEFRA guidelines on emissions will be met.

106. Fair Oak & Horton Heath Parish Council – Members expressed concern over the possible increase in traffic through the Village and asked if it could be considered to impose restrictions on the route the undertakers use, i.e. avoiding Burnetts Lane.

Policy Context: Designation Applicable To Site

• Within the Countryside • Outside Built-Up Area Boundary • Adjacent to Established Residential Area • Agricultural Land Value Grade 3b • Adjacent to Right of Way – Footpath 13

Development Plan Policies

Hampshire Country Structure Plan 1996-2011: (HCSP)

107. General: UB3 Development to be appropriate in design, scale and layout to its surroundings.

108. Economy: EC3 Normally development outside rural settlements is allowed if it makes use of existing buildings or is associated with agriculture.

109. Transport: • T1 Integrated transport strategies to reduce need to travel. • T2 parking policies promoted to reduce car dependency

• T4 new development to attracting large number of trips to have a choice of transport modes • T5 Transportation requirements of development must be met. • T6 New access must not interfere with effectiveness of Strategic Road Network or adversely affect the function and character of the non-strategic road network. • T12 Ensure provisions for walking, cycling and the mobility impaired

110. Countryside: • C1 promote conservation and enhancement of countryside, and minimise adverse effects of development on those interests of importance acknowledged. • C2 Normally only development essential for agriculture, the re-use of buildings or to assist farm diversification will be allowed in the countryside. • C3 Avoid loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.

111. Environment: • E3 Take account of land use and transportation to reduce demand for energy. • E6 Development must respect scenic quality, sense of place and setting of settlements in the countryside. • E8 Minimise adverse effect on woodland, trees and hedgerows. • E12 Minimise adverse effect on habitats and features of nature conservation. • E13 Consider opportunities to improve habitats and features. • E14 Protection of archaeological sites

Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) (EBLP)

112. Countryside • 1.CO Permit if for a public utility service and can not be in the urban edge • 4.CO Loss of Grade 1, 2 and 3a agricultural land not permitted. • 11.CO Non residential buildings not to physically or visually impact on area or generate significant additional traffic. • 18.CO Must respect landscape character

113. Nature Conservation • 25.NC Development which affects habitat or features of importance accepted if impacts are unavoidable and mitigation measures are secured. • 26.NC Development should enhance nature conservation features.

114. Environmental Sustainability • 32.ES Development which may generate air pollution only permitted if designed to control their impact to an acceptable level. • 33.ES Development that may/would have a significant impact on air quality will require a suitable air quality assessment. • 36.ES Lighting should not detract from the character of the area. • 47.ES Loss of protected trees will not be approved.

115. Built Environment • 59.BE Development is to take full and proper account of the context of the site including its character and appearance, provide high standard of landscaping, have satisfactory means of access and links, not interfere with adjoining land uses, have adequate refuse collection. • 60.BE Not permit development along major road corridors that adversely affects the quality of the environment. • 63.BE Car parking should be well landscaped, minimise lighting impact, and be safe environments.

116. Transport • 100.T Development should be accessible, minimises impact on road network, and minimise travel demand. • 101.T Development which increases traffic will be permitted if there is a proven need and contributions secured to offset the impact. • 102.T New access must not interfere with function and service of road network or have adverse environmental implications. • 104.T Must have adequate off road car parking

117. Tourism 162.TA Contributions will be sought for development along the Strawberry Trail along its route.

118. Community Facilities and Infrastructure 190.IN Development permitted where there is, or could be, adequate services and infrastructure.

Planning Policy Guidance / Statement

• PPG – 13 Transport • PPS – 1 Delivering Sustainable Development o 7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas o 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation o 23 Planning and Pollution Control

• PPG 13 Transport seeks to promote more sustainable transport choices for people, promote accessibility to services for people by walking, cycling and public transport as well as reducing the need to travel by car. It continues by recommending that in rural areas most development is located in identified local service centres. It acknowledges that in rural areas, the potential for using public transport and for non-recreational walking and cycling is more limited than in urban areas. New services should primarily be sited at the most accessible locations in the local area, or where accessibility will be improved as a result of the local transport plan provision or other measures that the local authority intends to take.

• PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. It states planning policies should promote social cohesion

and inclusion, protect and enhance the environment, have prudent use of resources, and allow for sustainable economic growth. Significant adverse impacts on the environment should be avoided and alternative options which might reduce or eliminate those impacts pursued. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable, planning authorities and developers should consider possible mitigation measures.

• PPS 7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas seeks to raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas and to promote more sustainable patterns of development. New building development in the open countryside away from existing settlements should be strictly controlled as the overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty. All development in rural areas should be well designed and inclusive, in keeping and scale with its location, and sensitive to the character of the countryside and local distinctiveness. It advises that little weight in agricultural terms should be given to the loss of agricultural land in grades 3b.

• PPS 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation seeks to preserve and enhance the ecological composition of the country. Development should not be supported if it results in the loss of ancient woodland, or cause harm to protected species.

• PPS23 “Planning and Pollution Control” advises that the planning system should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts of those uses, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves. Planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced. They should act to complement but not seek to duplicate the controls.

Policy Commentary

119. The above policies combine to form the criteria which this application will be assessed with particular regard to impact on the character of the area, the amenity of residential properties, highway matters, environmental impacts, natural features, alternative locations

Comment on Consultation Responses

120. See below

Comment on Representations Received

121. See below

Assessment of proposal: development plan and / or legislative background

122. Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:

123. “If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

124. The proposal is considered to comply with the relevant Development Plan policies:

Principle and Need

125. The closest crematoria to the Borough of Eastleigh, and that mostly likely used by its residents, is at Southampton which is the 5th busiest in the country and Porchester (2nd busiest). The applicant has provided data on the number of services at the Southampton site, which is in excess of 3500 per year, with the length of a service ranging between 30 – 40 minutes. The applicant believes that the level of care offered to the bereaved is reduced due to congestion and pressure on the Southampton crematorium and the facility’s inability to offer cremation services at 45 minute intervals which is seen as a basic requirement acknowledged by this sector. The supporting information demonstrates that local funeral directors are supportive of the proposals and the increased level of comfort/service that this would be provide. If Southampton and Porchester were to offer 45 minute service for all their services, this would equate to an inadequate capacity based on current numbers by some 37%.

126. In terms of need regard must be given to not only quantitative factors but also qualitative ones. The setting of a crematorium within the Borough would offer its residents of Eastleigh Borough more choice of crematoria, through providing a more tranquil and sensitive location for mourning at a very sensitive time in their lives. The site is easier to access, would reduce journey times and provide a modern facility offering longer service times set within a high quality landscaped environment.

127. This pressure on the existing facility and its difficulty in meeting the need for a 45 minute service, the distance and time mourners travel from the borough to Southampton, together with the more institutional surroundings of the Southampton site, support the argument for there being a need for a crematorium within the Borough of Eastleigh. This is strengthened by the increased level of families choosing cremations (72.45%) which equates to 1000 for the Borough of Eastleigh.

128. The local plan does not allocate a site within the borough for a crematorium and so the council had not been asked to form a view, prior to this application, on the need or best location for a crematorium. As such the application must be considered against the Development Plan Policies.

129. The siting of a crematorium is strictly controlled by the Crematorium Act 1902 which, together with the need for 6-12 acres, remedies it difficult to source a site within the urban area, as such countryside locations are seen more favourably. However, this has to be balanced against the relevant countryside and site specific policies. Government guidance and the policies of the

development plan seek to restrict development in the countryside. Policy 1.CO does make an exception for ‘public utility services’ in the countryside which can not be realistically sited within the built up area. The majority of crematoria are provided by local authorities who offer public service to the community. It is considered reasonable to apply the ‘exception’ rule to a private crematorium similar to essential public utility providers as appropriate exception to the normal presumption against development in the countryside, thus it would not be contrary to policy 1.CO of the EBLP.

130. However, balanced against this the development must be assessed against other policies within the development plans and against government guidance.

Location

131. Through adopting a sequential approach to site selection the applicant has demonstrate that there are no reasonable alternative sites which meet so many of the best practice requirements without compromising other local plan designations. The proposed site is suitable in terms of its ability to serve the residents of the borough due to its mid-borough location, as well as proposing a site that has no protective designations or constraints. The site is not within a local or strategic gap, contains no nature conservation restrictions and would not result in the loss of “most versatile agricultural land”. The site is afforded reasonable screening by the existing trees and hedges and the railway embankment which is intended to be strengthened with additional planting and bunding. This site is close to urban populations, close to a major road and public transport nodes, as well as accessible by cyclists and pedestrians. The site selection meets the best practice guidance of the Central Government which provides advice on site selection for new crematoria.

132. The operational needs and restrictions placed on crematoria are sufficient to accept a countryside site and a departure from the local plan. These reasons are unique and permitting this development in this location would be unlikely to set a precedent that would undermine the stability of the strategic gap or the countryside in this location.

133. Extensive analysis of the borough has been conducted in to alternative sites. The southern side of the M27 is generally not favoured as it is not central enough to the Borough and its main residential areas, whilst to the north few sites meet the 200 yard rule. Of those that do meets the strict locational requirements the sites generally have poor access.

134. It is acknowledged that the development would initially be visible, but with the establishment of the proposed planting comprising of evergreen and deciduous species, and topographical moulding, the site would not have a significant physical or visual impact on the character of the area, the integrity of the countryside or the identity of surrounding urban areas. In terms of the requirements of policies C1, C3, E6 of the HCSP and 11.CO, 18.CO and 60.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 1997, the proposal is acceptable.

135. In the light of the special operational requirements of a crematorium the reuse of an existing building, as sought by C2 and EC3 of the HCSP in the countryside is not a realistic option.

136. The architect’s panel view that the crematorium should be on a more prominent site offering a grander setting for the facility, akin to a civic building, is not supported by officers. However, as officers it is felt that a building that sits comfortably and sympathetically within this countryside location is considered more appropriate.

137. In principle, the proposed site is considered to be an appropriate location for a crematorium given that it meets the restrictive requirements of the applicant whilst not undermining the objectives of the countryside policies of the Development Plan.

Layout & design

138. The proposed layout is functional and affords efficiency to the operational requirements of the site, through providing a clear direction of movement of mourners through the site. The position of the crematorium itself is dictated by the 200 yard radius around existing dwellings, resulting in the crematorium being located 65m from the Bubb Lane boundary and adjacent to the railway embankment. Although the building could be located up to 50m further southwest making it more central to its Bubb Lane frontage, the proposed location is afforded the best screening by the existing vegetation and railway embankment, and is therefore considered the most appropriate siting. Furthermore, repositioning the building would not sit comfortably with the clockwise rotation of mourners passing through the site. The layout also ensures the retention of all trees and hedging screening, apart from a crab able tree and more modern hedgerow along the Bubb Lane frontage.

139. The general appearance of the site would be softened with additional extensive screen planting both within the site and around its perimeters, whilst the expanse of car parking would be part tarmac and part gravel to avoid large areas of hard surfacing. The landscape master plan conveys this illustrating that glimpses of the building would be achieved from outside the site, from the site’s entrance and once within the site, thus avoiding extensive views of the entire building. Furthermore, landscaping around the building would develop/establish to screen parts of the walls of the office/crematorium aspects. The “in” and “out” arrangement at the access would be more dominant than a farm gate entrance. However, the retention of hedging and trees either side, the structural planting of the central island together with the backdrop of landscaped bunds the entrance is not considered to be of such urban appearance that it would cause demonstrable harm to the character of the area. Existing nearby development Berrywood Farm has a more prominent entrance which is within the Strategic Gap and immediately visible within the Tollbar Way street scene. The courtyard onto which mourners leave the chapel would be landscaped. Overall, the basic layout of the site accords with the objectives of policies 18.CO, 60.BE and 63.BE of the EBLP.

140. The revised design of the building and the manner in which it relates to its immediate and wider landscape setting is considered appropriate. The scale and form of the building is acceptable, replicating a cluster of buildings. Previous concerns about the architectural detailing and rather bland and utilitarian appearance have been addressed through additional detailing to the doors, windows and Porte Cochere, the use of clay roof tiles rather than slate and the raising of the ridge to offer a building of stronger design. The positioning and type of windows proposed concentrate views once in the chapel into a small courtyard with views for mourners of the wider trees and landscaped grounds. This is balanced against the need for privacy and respect for mourners, whilst restricting views into the chapel when a service is in place. The area immediately outside the chapel, the floral tribute area and paths around the building have been improved in direct response to officer’s comments resulting in an attractive, sympathetic and respectful setting.

141. The applicant has confirmed that the stack height as submitted is correct and appropriate, with additional information provided in support of this. The views of the Head of Environmental Health on this have been sought.

142. The revised development is of a suitably high quality, and is considered to comply with the criteria of UB3 and E6 of the HCSP or policies 59.BE of the EBLP.

Highway matters

143. Significant objections have been raised by local residents on a number of highway grounds. The Head of Transportation and Engineering and Hampshire County Council (Highways - Development Control) have considered the proposal and raise no objection to the principle of a crematorium in this location, or to an access on to Bubb Lane.

144. A detailed 7 days traffic survey has been undertaking demonstrating there are existing high level of weekly traffic movements along Tollbar Way of between 41,500 and 45,500 vehicles, the majority of which are cars (86-92.5%). The highest average daily count over 5 days was 6926, with the lowest of 6613.

145. The proposal would have on average 6 services, rising to a maximum of 9 forty five minute services when operating at full capacity. A 2% increase in daily traffic flow on Tollbar Way/Bubb Lane as a result of the development (135 trips), which would be light vehicles, is not considered to be a significant increase on that currently experienced. Furthermore, 95% of these movements would be outside of peak traffic times (0800-0900 and 1700-1800) and would not conflict with times of high traffic movements or cause congestion. In the light of this information, the development would not have a detrimental impact overall on the highway network.

146. The junction is on the change in speed limits from 60mph to 40mph and concerns have been raised about the conflict of slow moving funeral traffic and speeding motorist. The 85%ile speed was 46mph at the Bubb Lane/Tollbar Way junction which demonstrates vehicles are slowing down on entry to the

40mph zone. The junction has good sight lines and a right turning lane and there are clear views when travelling along Bubb Lane/Tollbar Way. HCC has advised there has been only one accident at this junction in three years. On Bubb Lane, the road is afforded good visibility along its frontage with the site, allowing mourner’s traffic and general road users full view of each other subject to revision to the access. HCC have no objection on highway safety grounds to the junction’s increased use subject to contributions towards gateway features on Tollbar Way and traffic calming in Moorgreen Road to minimise the impact of any additional traffic movements and reduce speeds further. This is considered sufficient to address the highway impact of the development especially in relations to speed and traffic movements.

147. Furthermore, the site is close to a bus route, the railway station and proposes additional footpath and cycle path links which offer realistic alternatives to the car. The site falls just outside of a medium accessibility area, but is considered relatively sustainable for a rural location. On a more strategic level, the facility would reduce travel times and distance for many borough residents who otherwise would attend the crematorium in Southampton or Porchester. Overall, the proposal meets the criteria of policies T1, T4, T12 and E3 of the HCSP and 59.BE, 100.T and 101.T of the EBLP.

148. The access as originally submitted did not afford sufficient sight lines southwest (down Bubb Lane towards West End) when entering the site. Amendments to the position of the entry access or to the alignment of the road have been secured. In the light of the number of traffic movements associated with this development, the traffic management proposals for routing to and from the site and the existing deterrent of traffic calming in Moorgreen Road, HCC and EBC highway officers have advised that a more traditional junction which allows access towards Moorgreen Road would be safer and not unreasonable. This would reduce potential highway safety concerns by allowing vehicles to turn safely right. Directional signs, routing literature and a travel management plan would still be included to encourage those exiting the site to leave via Tollbar Way. The proposed access would comply with T6 of the HCSP and 59.BE and 102.T of the EBLP.

149. Pedestrian links to and through the site have also been secured with the provision of a new footpath and cycleway from Tollbar Way to the site. Land is also to be dedicated to the future extension of the Strawberry Trail which would be constructed as and when the land to the west becomes available.

150. There are no HCC adopted car parking standards for a crematorium but the Head of Transportation and Engineering has confirmed that with an average of 15 to 20 cars visiting the site per service, even with a possible overlap between mourners arriving and leaving, that 74 car parking spaces is appropriate. This also slightly exceeds the recommended best practice standards of the 2/3rds of the seating capacity, which would equate to 64 spaces for 96 seats. The applicant has submitted additional information to support this average figure based on data from other crematoria. The level of parking provision, which includes disabled parking, is appropriate and meets the requirements of policies T2 and T5 of the HCSP and 104.T of the EBLP.

Environmental issues

151. The Head of Environmental Health has offered detailed guidance on the process for addressing the environmental process of a crematorium, including the need to secure a licence from the Head of Environmental Health. Measures are in place to ensure that the process accords with set standards and it is not for the planning system to determine if these standards are appropriate or for it to duplicate separate legalisation. The application is supported with detailed information on the emissions and its relation to standards set by the World Heath Organisation (WHO).

152. Emission concentrations of heavy metals are subject to regulated maximum values set out in the Process Guidance Note PG%/2(04) Secretary of State’s Guidance on Crematoria. Research tests in 2001 on cremators fitted without flue gas treatment equipment showed below measurable levels of cadmium, thallium and chromium. Test undertaken in 2004 on plant fitted with mercury abatement equipment showed the concentration of majority if heavy metals was below the lower levels of detection. Those heavy metals detected would result in ground level concentrations well below the UK, EU and WHO exposure limits.

153. In lay person’s terms, if a person stood in the position of maximum ground level concentration of Dioxins (50 – 100m down wind of the stack) emitted from the crematorium for 8 hours, he or she would absorb a maximum of 0.014% of the daily tolerable Dioxin absorption limit indicated by the WHO. This is approximately 1/7000th of the tolerable limit and clearly demonstrates that based on the approved standards the proposal would not be detrimental to human health.

154. All residential units exceed 200 yds (182.88m) from the crematorium building and therefore fall well outside the maximum concentration of Dioxins. The highway, including Bubb Lane and Footpath 13 which runs through the woodland at the top of the embankment, are outside of the 50 yard (15.24m) requirement.

155. With regards to prevailing winds, government guidance on the need to take into account prevailing winds was produced before more stringent requirements on filtration were introduced. The filtration system proposed negates the need to consider the prevailing winds in the process of site selection. The applicant has stated that the estimated ground level concentrations if the vicinity of a flue under all UK weather conditions are at a maximum within 100m of the stack, which is always predominately within the ground of the crematorium. The calculated pollutants even at this point are usually within a small fraction of the existing background concentrations.

156. With regards to current air quality in this area, the site is not within an identified Air Quality Management Area and neither the traffic movements, extent of traffic associated with this development, nor the activity itself, would

result in demonstrable reduction in air quality. The process would not generate visible gases or smoke as part of the process.

157. The equipment used in the cremation process and abatement plant to be used on site is continuously monitored with fail-safe procedures in place to address any technical problems that may arise. This is continuously recorded and used to generate reports for the EHO.

158. The level of noise associated with the process would be minimal and would not cause disturbance to the amenity of the area of nearby residential properties.

159. Waste collected through the Mercury abatement process would be transferred by light van from site every 6 – 8 weeks in a single drum. This process posses no threat to human health and is controlled by separate legislation. The waste is a non-reactive powder and is classified as non-hazardous for transportation but hazardous for disposal under the Hazardous Waste Regs. The company transferring this waste has a proven track record of handling similar material.

160. To minimise the impact of the construction process on residential amenity conditions are recommended related to hours of construction, no on site burning of construction waste and the routing of HGV associated with the construction process.

161. The proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on environmental quality of the amenity of occupiers of residential properties, and accords with policies 32.ES or 33.ES of the EBLP.

Nature Conservation

162. The site is not subject to any protective designations whilst the supporting information has demonstrated that the site contains no protected species. There is no substantive evidence of glow worms on the site however these are not protected species. No objection has been raised by Natural England, Environment Agency, The Woodland Trust, CPRE or the council’s biodiversity officer. The mature ancient woodland and hedgerows are to be retained and details of their protection during the construction process are set out in the Design & Access Statement. The 15m of hedgerow to be lost to the access and the crab apple tree are of lower importance along the site’s boundary and their loss is acceptable subject to replacement planting.

163. The ecological report acknowledges that the woodland may contain badgers; the field has potential for nesting birds and that the vegetation at the point of access could be a suitable habitat for reptiles. Although these species have not been observed a condition is recommended to carry out further surveys prior to the commencement of development. The proposed site is not considered to cause detriment to any features of acknowledged importance and complies with policies E8, E12 and E13 of the HCSP and policy 25.NC of the EBLP.

164. The proposal includes extensive replanting which would enhance the biodiversity value of the site, as well as it overall visual appearance. Subject to a more detailed landscape scheme being submitted the development accords with policies 26.NC and 59.BE of the EBLP.

Percent for Art

165. The applicant has confirmed that they are willing to work with the council’s art officer in the commissioning and implementation of a piece of art in association with this development.

Other matters

166. Precedent – By permitting this development a precedent would not be set for the loss of more countryside to other forms of development. A crematorium is a unique proposal which can not readily be provided within the urban edge, thus edge of urban areas are appropriate and realistic locations. Alternative development proposals, such as housing, commercial or employment schemes, would be directed to urban locations.

167. Devaluation of property – This is not a material planning consideration.

168. Proximity to school – The Federation of British Crematoria Authorities seek crematoria to be a reasonable distance from school to avoid funerals being disturbed by noise from schools. As a guide 300-400m is considered adequate and in this case St James School is 1400m away, as such there is no conflict to be concerned about.

169. Human Rights - The development has been assessed against the rights afforded to individuals under Article 2, 8 and 14, and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998. The impact of the development, during both the construction process and once operational, would not have an unacceptable impact on the health, amenity and quality of life afforded to residents within the area as a result of the mitigation measures proposed and the controls afforded under separate legislation. The proposal has been assessed against the policies of the Development Plan and is not considered to breach rights such that the development should not be permitted in accordance with national planning guidance and the policies of the development plan.

170. Publicity - The publicity of this application accords with the adopted publicity procedures of the Council for planning applications as well as statutory planning legislation. Letters were sent to near properties with a site notice displayed on site and an advert placed in the Daily Echo. West End Parish Council, Fair Oak and Horton Heath Parish Council and Hedge End Town Council were all consulted.

171. Lack of second chapel – The applicant has advised that current population levels, death rate and predicted number of funerals do not support the need for a second chapel at this site.

Planning obligation /considerations

172. In accordance with the provisions of Circular 05/05 and policy 101.T of the EBLP contributions are sought to minimise the impact of the development on the existing highway network. The contributions would be used to provide a gateway feature on Tollbar Way to facilitate a reduction in vehicle speeds thus further improving the safety of vehicles using the junction. In addition, contributions are sought to improve the traffic management measures currently in Moorgreen Road thereby further reducing any attraction this route may hold for mourners accessing or exiting the crematorium. The contributions are to be secured through a section 106 legal agreement.

Other material considerations

173. It is considered that there are no other material considerations to warrant a decision otherwise than in accordance with the Development Plan and / or legislative background.

Conclusion

141. The proposed crematorium is acceptable and accords with national guidance, county and local policies. The proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area, the highway network, the amenity of the local residents or features of nature conservation. As such, planning permission is recommended subject to the receipt of contributions towards off-site highway works.

MP 76.25

P E a th N ( A um L ) S T T E

B M

29 .7 9m

29.6m

R C

y d B rd a W

E D & W a rd B d C y R

28.3m

1 5

7 4 E S 8 O 8 L C 3 4 R IE R Posts R 8

E 2

T 8 0 0 1 5 4 E AN

L TE

7 B 5 R 4

B 3 R U IE B R

0

3 6 4 3 C L 8

BM 1 2 72 2

7 6 0 T 28.22m E

R

2 7

4 2 R

T 8 Berrywood Cottages E 6 IE R R R IE C

R L 5 O 2 C S E LO S

E 2

7

2 1

3 7 0

1 16 1

2 4 5 4 S N

5 E

5

2 D 1 R 29 A 10 9

4 G

3 4 S

R

y U 3 3

1 2

1

d 2

H 6 B 9 T A d R R 2 r T a A H U Y

W R A

1 S 3 W G D N 13 N R

S O

0 1 C 2 3 R 0 E P 9 P 9 1 E

1 1 P

9

2 1 1 5 Y 1 3 A 8 1 3 3 W E l S u 1 b

R 1 S

1 W ta 8

2 A A 8 IN W B R IG L H 5 7 T L 4 G O 4 AR DE

T NS

2 A 3

D 4 2 1

A 2 5 1 1 M Y 9 S 6 3 C A L 14 W O 2

SE

2

RN 3 6 3

RCO 8

E 3 1

3

1 P 8

P 5

E

P

0

Scale 1

2

5 2

1

4 2 0 20 40 60 80 100 m 1 2

MAUNSELL WAY

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with Scale 1:2500 the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil Map Ref SU4815NE proceedings. Licence No. 100019622 (2007) Development Control Date 27/06/2007