HEDGE END, WEST END and BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE Will Meet on Monday, 18 February 2013

Civic Offices, Leigh Road, Eastleigh SO50 9YN

8 February 2013

HEDGE END, WEST END AND BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE will meet on Monday, 18 February 2013

Kings Community Church, Upper Northam Close, Hedge End, SO30 4BB*

* Please note that vehicular access and car parking is from UPPER NORTHAM ROAD. The Upper Northam Close entrance is pedestrian access only.

THE MEETING WILL START AT 6.30 PM

Maximum capacity of the hall is estimated at 1,000 persons

TO: Councillor Rupert G M Kyrle (Chairman) Councillor Daniel Clarke (Vice-Chairman) Councillor Louise Bloom Councillor Mrs Cathie Fraser Councillor David Goodall Councillor Keith House Councillor Jenny Hughes Councillor Peter Hughes Councillor Tony Noyce Councillor Derek R Pretty Councillor Bruce Tennent Councillor Mrs Jane Welsh Councillor Mick Wheatley

Staff Contacts: Julia Roy, Democratic Services Officer Tel: 023 8068 8133; Email: [email protected] Jon Riddell, Area Co-ordinator Tel: 023 8068 8437; Email: [email protected]

RICHARD WARD Head of Legal and Democratic Services ______Copies of this and all other agendas can be accessed via the Council's website - http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/meetings as well as in other formats, including Braille, audio, large print and other languages, upon request. Members of the public are invited to speak on general items at the start of the meeting, and on individual agenda items at the time the item is discussed. To register please contact the Democratic Services Officer above. Please be aware that Eastleigh Borough Council permits filming, sound recording and photography at meetings open to the public.

AGENDA

1. Apologies

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

3. Chairman's Report (Pages 1 - 2)

4. Presentation on Planning Guidelines

5. Planning Application - land at Wildern Mill and part of Hedge End Retail Park, Charles Watts Way/Turnpike Way, Hedge End (Pages 3 - 48) Ref. F/12/71663 - Demolition of existing on-site buildings and erection of 8,310 sqm (GEA) retail store with car park at rear and access off Charles Watts Way and the construction of 41 dwellings with associated car parking, amenity space, landscaping, access off Turnpike Way and highway works, including improvements and modifications to existing footpaths and traffic calming measures on Turnpike Way.

6. Planning Application - land to north and east of Boorley Green, Winchester Road, Botley (Pages 49 - 156) Ref. O/12/71514 - Outline application with all matters reserved (except for access) for the demolition of golf driving range shelter and groundsman's equipment store and the development of 1400 homes with access from Winchester Road and Maddoxford Lane (with upgrades to the Winchester Road/Woodhouse Lane Junction and approaches and Maypole Roundabout, construction of Sunday's Hill Bypass and approaches, extension to existing hotel (including new conference and leisure facilities, 44 no. new bedrooms and car parking), creation of new local centre (incorporating energy centre, pub, assisted living accommodation, retail and employment floorspace, including change of use of Braxells Farm House to employment), primary school, multi purpose community building, sports and open space facilities including play areas, allotments and Multi-Use Games Area, and changing facilities, together with construction of roads, footpaths (including diversion of Footpath No. 2) and cycle ways, and pumping stations. This application is the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment and a departure from the development plan. (Amended description following amended plans received 11/12/2012)

DATE OF NEXT MEETING Monday, 11 March 2013 at 7:00 pm in the Hedge End 2000 Centre, St John's Road, Hedge End, SO30 4AF

Agenda Item 3

Hedge End, West End and Botley Local Area Committee Chairman’s Report Monday 18 February 2013

Poseidon Amateur Boxing Club I was delighted to officially open a new gymnasium on 5th February for the Poseidon Amateur Boxing Club in the east stand of the Ageas Bowl.

The club is being managed by 3 Royal naval officers who, as volunteers, will be offering sports and fitness programmes for all ages and abilities with specialist training and conditioning for male and female elite boxers. The club is liaising with police colleagues inviting referrals to join the training and nutrition programmes on offer.

The cost of developing the gymnasium was £10,000 funded by this Committee’s CIP reserve with matched funds from corporate resources. The Sports Development Officer has secured £5,000 for start up equipment which includes safety equipment, gloves, punch bags and training ring. A grant application of £10,000 has been submitted to Sports England.

The clubs rental fees will be earmarked by the newly formed Hampshire Cricket Community Trust to invest in local cricket development as well as providing grants and sponsorship to local sports and community projects. I wish the club every success as they expand their activities and let’s hope we will be soon be developing potential Olympic boxing champions for the future.

Street Closure Order – Botley I used my delegated powers to approve expenditure of £504 to fund a street closure order for the recent protest march on High Street, Botley. I am grateful to Sue Grinham and BPAG for cooperating with police and engineering staff to ensure a safe and well marshalled event

Pedestrian and Cycle Improvements – Lower Northam Road. A £300,000 scheme has been completed providing wider shared pavements, pedestrian refuges, new bus shelters and environmental improvements between Hedge End Town centre and the Maypole roundabout. I am grateful to the Boroughs construction team who designed and managed the construction works in partnership with the highway authority. They have been commissioned to plan and design the extension of this link into Broad Oak and on to Botley Village centre.

Charterhouse Way Link Contractors have completed the new tarmac pedestrian and cycle link providing Dowd’s Farm residents with direct off road access to the District Centre at Shamblehurst Lane. This short strategic link, which includes street lighting, cuts approximately half mile off the road route and is proving very popular with families and pupils accessing Wildern and Shamblehurst schools.

YMCA Challenge Project The Fairthorne Manor Challenge Project will be launched on 26th February with a family session for this years twelve nominees who have been specifically referred to

1 this outdoor team building and personal development programme. This is the fifth year the programme has been running. It has a proven record of diverting young people from crime and anti-social behaviour with 90% of the graduates avoiding further contact with the police or the Hampshire Youth Offending Team. I am grateful to the Hamble Valley Rotarians for their continued support and sponsorship of the project which concludes with an over night camp and special award ceremony.

Friday Night Football Further to my previous report I am pleased to confirm that a Service Level Agreement has been negotiated with sufficient funds available to secure the future of this important diversionary project for the next two years. I am grateful to Botley Parish Council, First Wessex Housing and the Community Safety Partnership for their support.

Birch Road – improvements Following a Saturday meeting with Birch Rd residents a scheme has been drawn up to improve footpaths and disabled access to elderly persons bungalows in Birch Road. Contractors are scheduled to undertake the improvement work before Easter. A sum of £750 has been allocated to enable our construction team to design and cost off-street parking bays for some of the residents giving priority to the four registered disabled drivers who live in the area.

Community Grants Awards Our Committees community grants awards will be distributed in an informal ceremony prior to our next LAC Committee meeting. Members are invited to attend the gathering of our community groups which will start at 6.15pm at the 2000 Centre on Monday 11 March. This year we have allocated £12,000 to support over 20 local community projects.

2 Agenda Item 5

18/02/2013

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR DECISION

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY Monday 18 February 2013 Case Officer Dawn Errington

SITE: Land at Wildern Mill and part of Hedge End Retail Park, Charles Watts Way/Turnpike Way, Hedge End, Southampton, SO30 4RT

Ref. F/12/71663 Received: 29/10/2012 (28/01/2013)

APPLICANT: Town Quay Developments Ltd, Linden Limited and Next Group PLC

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing on-site buildings and erection of 8,310 sqm (GEA) retail store with car park at rear and access off Charles Watts Way and construction of 41 dwellings with associated car parking, amenity space, landscaping, access off Turnpike Way and highway works, including improvements and modifications to existing footpaths and traffic calming measures on Turnpike Way.

AMENDMENTS: 07/12/12 , 11/12/12, 17/12/2012, 20/12/2012, 21/12/2012, 2/1/2013, 4/1/2013, 10/1/13, 18/1/13

RECOMMENDATION:

PERMIT

CONDITIONS AND REASONS:

(1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 5001P6, P007, P008, 5000 P11, 3000A P1, 3001 P1, 3002, 3003A P1, 3003B P1, 3004A, 3004B, 3005A, 3005B, 3007A, 3007B, 3008, 3009, 3100, 3200, 6000 P1, 6001 P1, 120552/A/PL01 REV C, 120552/A/PL02 REV C, 120552/A/PL03 REV D, 120552/A/PL04 REV B, 120552/A/PL05 REV A, 120552/A/PL06 REV A, 120552/A/PL07 REV D, 120552/A/PL08 REV A, 120552/A/PL09 REV A,

120552/A/PL10, 120552/A/PL11 REV D, 120552/A/PL12 REV A, 120552/A/PL13 Rev A, 120552/A/205 Rev B, 120552/C/002 REV C, 120552/C/500 REV B, 120552/C/001 REV E, 120552/C/700 REV B, 120552/C/1200 REV B, 0644.001 B, T2720-01, T 272/06 Rev A, 0474.1.3E, 0470.1.3 Rev E, A/PL20/A/120552A, A/PL21/A/120552A, A/PL22/A/120552A, A/PL23/A/120552A, , 444-M14 Rev A, 444-P32, 120552/E/100 Rev B, 5001 P6, T272/3 Rev E. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

(2) The retail development hereby permitted must be begun within a period of two 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.

(3) The residential development hereby permitted must be begun within a period of two 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.

(4) No construction or demolition work must take place except between the hours 0730 to 1800 Mondays to Fridays or 0900 to 1300 on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings.

(5) The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the ecological report [AA Environmental, October 2012]. Reason: To protect and enhance biodiversity.

(6) No retail or residential development shall commence until full details and specifications of all proposed footway/cycleway works and the pedestrian crossing as shown on drawing 5000 Rev P11, to include lighting and no- dig construction provisions, 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 these approved works have been completed . Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to provide for sustainable methods of transport.

(7) Prior to the commencement of any development, a Conservation and Woodland Management Plan for the whole site shall be submitted in writing and approved by the LPA. The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plan. Reason: To protect and enhance biodiversity.

The Conservation and Woodland Management Plan should contain the following aspects: 1. A construction management plan detailing how ecological features will be protected during the construction phase

2.An operational management plan for the lifetime of the development, including: a. Details of replacement roosting features for barn owls and bats b. Suitable lighting scheme for bats. c. A Woodland Management Plan to conserve and enhance the SINC Reason: To protect and enhance biodiversity.

(8) No clearance of vegetation shall occur on the site during the bird-nesting season (between 1 March and 31 August inclusive in any given year), unless supervised by an appropriately qualified ecologist. Reason: To prevent harm to breeding birds.

(9) No trenches for services or drains shall be sited within the crown spread of any trees that are to be retained on site. Reason: To protect the health and stability of the trees to be retained on site

(10) No burning of materials obtained by site clearance or from any other source to take place on this site during the demolition, construction and fitting out process. Reason: In the interests of amenity

(11) Before any demolition commences, the measures which will be undertaken to protect/divert the water mains and foul sewer must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to protect water and drainage apparatus

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

(12) Before demolition commences for the residential development, a demolition and construction management plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan must detail the programme of demolition and the residential construction period, the management of dust, piling, vibration, noise, construction traffic movements, temporary construction car parking location of site huts, storage of building materials and mud on the road protection measures. The demolition and construction must then be in accordance with the agreed plan. Reason: In the interests of amenity.

(13) Plans and particulars showing the proposals for all the following aspects of residential 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 design and layout of foul sewers and surface water drains c. The design of all sustainable drainage;

d: The provision to be made for street lighting and/or external lighting. New lighting should be designed and located to minimise light spillage and avoid impacting on feeding corridors of any bats using the tree/vegetation line around the site or air navigational safety;

e: The detailed provision to be made for the storage of cycles and refuse bins.

(14) The residential 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 in accordance with details to be agreed beforehand by the Local Planning Authority, and the areas must be retained, including those areas marked out on the plan as being unallocated and not in private ownership, 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/amenity.

(15) Within 3 months of the commencement of residential development a detailed noise management strategy and scheme to supplement the Alan Saunders Associates Noise Impact Assessment 5.12.12 for protecting the proposed dwellings from noise from the adjoining retail developments must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include double glazing and acoustic trickle vents for the dwelling facades that face Turnpike Way and the retail car park (to specification Rw33dB) and an acoustic close boarded fence of 2.2m height and density greater than 12kg/sqm. All works which form part of the scheme approved by the Local Planning Authority must be completed before any the permitted dwellings is occupied (unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority). Reason: To ensure that acceptable noise levels within the dwellings and the curtilages of the dwellings are not exceeded.

(16) Within 3 months of the commencement of the residential development details of external security lighting, lockable gates and all other crime prevention proposals for the residential development must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority . The development must then accord with these approved details. Reason: In the interests of crime prevention.

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

(18) Details of the type of construction proposed for the residential roads and footways including all relevant horizontal cross sections and longitudinal sections showing the existing and proposed levels together with details of street lighting and the method of disposing of surface water and details of the programme for the making up of the roads and footways must be

submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before residential development commences. Reason: To ensure that the roads are constructed to an acceptable standard

(19) The roads and footways must be laid out and made up in accordance with the specification, programme and details approved and in any event shall be so constructed that, by no later than the time any dwelling erected on the land is occupied, there shall be a direct connection from it to an existing highway. The final carriageway and footway surfacing must be commenced within six months and completed within twelve months from the date upon which the erection is commenced of the penultimate dwelling or flat for which permission is hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure that the roads are constructed to an appropriate standard

(20) Within 3 months of the commencement of the residential development hereby approved (or in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), a Code for Sustainable Homes interim stage certificate and report highlighting how all of the essential requirements of the Eastleigh Borough Council adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’ are to be met shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development meets the requirements of the adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’.

(21) Within one month of the first occupation of any dwellings within the development hereby approved, a Code for Sustainable Home final stage certificate and report highlighting how all of the essential requirements of the Eastleigh Borough Council adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’ have been met shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development meets the requirements of the adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’.

(22) No residential development shall commence on site until the following has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: (a) A site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the submitted desk study in accordance with BS10175:2001, and, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority; (b) A detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid the risk from contaminants and/or gases when the site is developed and proposals for future maintenance a and monitoring. Such a scheme shall include nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works. Reason: To protect the aquifer and prevent risk to human health.

(23) The residential development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the local

planning authority verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of the above condition that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of the above condition has been implemented in full in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written permission of the local planning authority in advance of implementation). Unless agreed in writing with the local planning authority such verification shall comprise:- (a) built drawings of the implemented scheme (b) photographs of the remediation works in progress (c) certificates demonstrating that imported and /or material left in situ is free from contamination. Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme under the above condition. Reason: to ensure contaminated land is remediated

(24) Residential development shall not commence until a final surface water drainage scheme for the residential site, based on sustainable drainage principles (including measures to prevent pollution of the River Itchen) and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro-geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented before the residential development is completed and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Those details shall include:

1. Information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving surface waters; 2. A timetable for its implementation; and 3. A management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable urban drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.

Surface water arising from a developed site should, as far as is practicable, be managed in a sustainable manner to mimic the surface water flows arising from the site prior to the proposed development, while reducing the flood risk to the site itself and elsewhere, taking climate change into account.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance.

(25) Before the residential development commences, or by such later date as the Local Planning Authority may determine, a detailed 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.

(26) The residential landscape scheme must be completed within 12 months from the completion of the last residential 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.

(27) The garages shall not be converted to living accommodation without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to provide adequate on-site car parking.

(28) The residential vehicular access, including any footway crossing and verge crossing, must be constructed in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any development hereby permitted. Reason: To provide satisfactory access.

(29) An appropriate and detailed method statement, referring to the Environment Agency’s Code of Practice for the Management, Destruction and disposal of Japanese Knotweed must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the residential development. The development must then proceed in accordance with this method statement. Reason: To protect existing biodiversity

(30) No residential development related works (including demolition) shall take place on site until an Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved method statement submitted in support of the application shall be adhered to in full in accordance with the approved plans and may only be modified subject to written agreement from the LPA. Reason: To protect existing site trees.

(31) No residential development shall commence until a site meeting has taken place with the site manager, the retained consulting arboriculturalist and a representative from the Local Planning Authority. Work shall not commence until the LPA officer has inspected and approved the fencing and ground protection (such approval not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed). Once approved no access by vehicles or placement of goods, chemicals, fuels, soil or other materials shall take place within the fenced area. The fencing shall be retained in its approved form for the duration of the work. Reason: in order to protect site trees.

RETAIL DEVELOPMENT

(32) A final Travel Plan for the retail development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 6 months of the first opening of the retail store hereby permitted and further travel plans shall be submitted within 3 months of any subsequent occupations for written approval by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Travel Plans shall be fully implemented in accordance with their agreed timescales and provisions. Reason: to assist in delivering sustainable transport options.

(33) Within 3 months of the commencement of the retail development, 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. The development must then accord with these approved details. Reason: In order that these matters may be considered by the Local Planning Authority.

a. Full details and samples of all external facing/cladding, screening and roofing materials

b. The provision to be made for street lighting and/or external lighting.

d. The full details of the provision to be made for the storage of refuse and recyclables.

e. Details of any provision of trolley storage.

(34) Within 3 months of the commencement of the retail development, details of external security lighting, bus station lighting, car parking lighting help points, CCTV, lockable gates and all other crime prevention proposals must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented prior to the first opening of the retail store. Reason: In the interests of crime prevention.

(35) Before the retail development commences, details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved works shall be fully provided prior to the first opening of the retail store. Reason: To ensure sufficient capacity in the water infrastructure.

(36) Within 3 months of the commencement of the retail development , or by such later date as the Local Planning Authority may determine, a full landscape scheme comprising planting, details of hard surfacing, final tree pit details, and all means of enclosure including any retaining walls/structures 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 and to reduce waste in the interests of sustainability

(37) The retail development landscape scheme must be completed within 12 months of the retail building shell, or by such later date as the Local Planning Authority may determine. Any trees or plants which die during the first five years must be replaced during the next planting season. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory.

(38) Within 3 months of the commencement of the retail development, details of any plant or equipment that gives rise to noise eg. air conditioning or process exhausts or emissions of dust, ash, fume, gases, grit, odours or soot must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The equipment or plant must then be sited and installed in accordance with these approved details and maintained as such in perpetuity. Reason: To consider the need for acoustic attenuation or siting position in the interests of residential amenity.

(39) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2010, the retail building must not be externally altered and there shall be no structures erected within its curtilage without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the impact upon the store surroundings is carefully controlled in the interests of visual amenity.

(40) The retail development hereby permitted must not be brought into use until the areas shown on the approved plan for the parking, loading and unloading 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.

(41) No work shall commence on the retail site until the following has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: (a) A site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the submitted desk study in accordance with BS10175:2001, and, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority; (b) A detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid the risk from contaminants and/or gases when the site is developed and proposals for future maintenance a and monitoring. Such a scheme shall include nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works. Reason: To protect the aquifer and prevent risk to human health.

(42) The retail development hereby permitted shall not be occupied / brought into use until there has been submitted to the local planning authority verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of the above condition that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of the above condition has been implemented in full in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written permission of the local planning authority in advance of implementation). Unless agreed in writing with the local planning authority such verification shall comprise:- (a) built drawings of the implemented scheme (b) photographs of the remediation works in progress (c) certificates demonstrating that imported and /or material left in situ is free from contamination. Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme under the above condition. Reason: To ensure the remediation of contamination.

(43) No banners shall be displayed on the retail building, walls, railings or fences without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To retain the urban design quality of the development

(44) Within 3 months of the commencement of the retail development hereby approved (or in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), a BREEAM interim stage certificate and report highlighting how the requirements of the Eastleigh Borough Council adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’ are to be met to meet BREEAM 2011 Very Good rating minimum 62.5% score shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development meets requirements of the adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’.

(45) Prior to the first occupation of the retail building hereby approved, a BREEAM final stage certificate and report highlighting the requirements of the Eastleigh Borough Council adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’ have been met to BREEAM Very Good minimum 62.5% standard shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development meets requirements of the adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’.

(46) Before demolition commences for the retail development, a demolition and construction management plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan must detail the programme of demolition and the retail construction period, the management of dust, piling, vibration, noise, construction traffic movements, temporary construction car parking location of site huts, storage of building materials and mud on the road protection measures. The demolition and construction works must then be in accordance with the agreed plan. Reason: In the interests of amenity.

(47) All deliveries and store servicing lorry movements to and from the retail development shall take place between 0730 and 2100 hours Monday - Friday, 0800-1800 hours Saturdays and 1100 - 1600 hours on Sundays or Public Holidays. Reason: To protect residential amenity and in the interests of customer safety.

(48) The retail store hereby approved shall be no greater than 8,310 square metres gross external area and shall incorporate the following floorspace restrictions: a. No more than 5,609 square metres of permitted floorspace shall be used for sales purposes (net sales area); and b. No more than 2,724 square metres of the permitted net sales floorspace shall be used for fashion items including, clothing, shoes, bags and jewellery. Reason: In order to control the retail impact of the development.

(49) With the exception of the in-store cafeteria, the premises shall be used for the sale of non-food home furnishings, furniture, kitchen and bathroom fittings, lighting, DIY and decorating products, electrical, garden and fashion goods only and for no other purpose (including any other purposes within Class A1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re- enacting that Order). Reason: the permission is granted on the basis of the specific retail impacts for the range of goods specified in order to preserve the vitality and viability of local centres.

(50) The retail premises shall not be subdivided and used by separate retail operators without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To preserve the vitality and viability of local centres.

(51) No retail development related works -including demolition- shall take place on site until an Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved method statement submitted in support of the application shall be adhered to in full in accordance with the approved plans and may only be modified subject to written agreement from the LPA. Reason: To protect existing site trees.

(52) No retail development shall commence until a site meeting has taken place with the site manager, the retained consulting arboriculturalist and a representative from the Local Planning Authority. Work shall not commence until the LPA officer has inspected and approved the fencing and ground protection. Once approved no access by vehicles or placement of goods, chemicals, fuels, soil or other materials shall take place within the fenced area. The fencing shall be retained in its approved form for the duration of the work. Reason: in order to protect site trees.

(53) A car park management plan for opening, weekend, Bank Holiday and sale days shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local

Planning Authority prior to the first use of the retail building and the plan shall be fully implemented on these days. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

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, trees, the amenity of neighbours or highway safety 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:

Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (54) Saved Policies: 22.NC, 23.NC, 25.NC, 29.ES, 32.ES, 33.ES, 34.ES, 35.ES, 36.ES, 37.ES, 45.ES, 52.BE, 55.BE, 59.BE, 62.BE, 63.BE, 66.BE, 89.T, 92.T, 100.T, 101.T, 102.T, 103.T, 104.T, 108.E, 125.TC, 126.TC, 127.TC, 134.TC, 165.TA, 168.LB, 177.LB, 185.IN, 190.IN, 191.IN, 28.ES, 30.ES, 42.ES, 45.ES, 47.ES, 64.BE, 72.H, 73.H, 74.H, 75.H, 81.H, 84.H, , 146.OS, 147.OS,

The emerging Eastleigh Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission Consultation: DM1, DM7, DM17, DM25, DM26, DM27, DM28, DM29, DM33, DM37, DM42, DM44, DM46, DM47, DM48, DM55, E4, E6, E7, DM59

National Planning Policy Framework 2012

South East Plan (adopted 2009): SP3, CC1, CC2, CC4, CC7, T1, T2, T4, T5, NRM5, NRM9, NRM11, NRM12, BE1, TC1, TC2, TC3, S1, S6, SH4

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

Under the Town and Country Planning [Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications][Amendment][England] Regulation 2008, a fee is required for Discharge of Condition Applications. N.B. Conditions not fully discharged, invalidate the planning permission.

______

This application has been referred to Committee because it is a significant major development.

The site and its surroundings

1. The application site comprises the former, now derelict, Wildern Mill and Multiyork buildings as well as a trading furniture store (formerly Halfords) and an area of undeveloped land in the south east corner. It also includes an existing right of way/permissive path between Turnpike Way and Charles Watts Way which is part adopted, and an area of woodland within its southern part which is now a designated SINC (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation). The site has a steep drop in levels between the former Halfords building and the land to the rear and its eastern boundary is characterised by a strong belt of mature TPO’d trees running adjacent to the public footpath. Further mature trees within the site have permission to be removed under an extant planning permission. Adjacent to the existing footpath is a substantial earth bund.

2. The context to the north and west is commercial, with the former Best Buy retail unit (Unit 2) and the Carphone Warehouse/Jessops units immediately to the west and further retail units to the north and west. East of the site, beyond the footpath, are established residential developments dating from the 1980s and 90s and south of Turnpike Way are playing fields,

Description of the application

3. The proposals comprise an 8,310 sqm (gross)/5609sqm (net) retail store to be occupied by Next Plc and 41 dwellings ranging from 1 to 4 bedroomed units. The retail store would be served by a 206 space car park using the existing access off Charles Watts Way, whilst the dwellings would use an approved access off Turnpike Way.

Retail

4. The Next Store is one of the company’s new “Home and Garden” concept operations which combines fashion goods with an expanded home wares offer, to include an outdoor garden centre and DIY products. It is envisaged that it would sell a wide range of goods including furniture; bathroom fittings; garden furniture, planters and plants; lighting; electrical goods; wallpaper, paint and DIY products; rugs; linens and furnishing items; picture frames, mirrors, vases and ornaments and crockery and cutlery, as well as clothing and fashion goods.

5. Room displays are a key feature, although 49% of the net retail floorspace (2724sqm) would be for separate fashion sales. 1,918m2 (34%) would be devoted to “home” goods, 359m2 (6%) to garden items, 294m2 (5%) to conservatory goods and 315m2 (6%) to a café.

6. All existing buildings on the site would be demolished, a large earth bund removed, and the new retail building would straddle the steep

change in levels with a lower ground floor entrance lobby level at the rear and two full trading floors above. Plant and PVs would sit on the roof. A bespoke design, using limestone cladding and extensive glazing is proposed. The proposed new store is sited close to Charles Watts Way and would be prominent in this street scene.

Residential

7. The proposed dwellings comprise 1 no. 1 bedroom, 16 no. 2 bedroom, 18 no. 3 bedroom and 6 no. 4 bedroom properties of traditional design and materials, most facing a single access road and existing SINC woodland. The mix includes detached, semi-detached, small terraces and one block of 12 flats. Except for the 3-storey flats at the western end of the site, all dwellings are two storey in design. A landscape buffer with acoustic fence between the proposed residential and retail car park parts of the development is shown.

Supporting Information

8. The application is supported by the following documents, a number of which have been updated and amended during the consideration of the application:

• Design & Access Statement • Arboricultural Development and Impact Assessment Statements (amended) • Ground Investigation Report • Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-Assessment Report • Transport Assessment (amended) • Travel Plan (amended) • Ecological Assessment (amended) • Affordable Housing Report (amended) • Daylight and Sunlight Assessment (amended) • Viability Report • Landscape Statement • Energy Statement • Retail Statement and Appendices (amended) • Noise Report (amended) • Planning Statement

9. The application was screened in November 2012 to determine whether an Environmental Impact Assessment would be required – the Council issued a Screening Opinion confirming that it would not be necessary.

Relevant planning history

10. Phase 1 of the Hedge End Retail Park was developed in the late 1980s as a location for “bulky goods” retailing, providing for retail units which by way of their format, size and customer parking are difficult to

accommodate in town and district centres. To support this function and to protect the vitality and viability of town and district centres, the sale of goods outside the definition of bulky goods has been consistently restricted in the area by the imposition of conditions on the grant of planning permission.

11. The site of unit 1, the building currently occupying the northern part of the application site (sometimes referred to as the former Halfords store), was the subject of a planning permission in 2005 reference F/05/54974 for the replacement of the existing building with two retail units with a mezzanine floor with a total floor area 3,653m2 gross with 85 parking spaces. Condition 2 of the planning permission restricts goods to be sold to bulky goods. Whilst the scheme has not been constructed, the permission remains valid as the development was commenced within the meaning of the Planning Acts.

12. Unit 2 on the Retail Park, located 110m to the west of the application site (sometimes referred to as units 2a and 2b) has a site history that is relevant to this application. In January 2007 a planning application was received in respect of unit 2a for the variation of condition 9 (a “bulky goods” restriction) of the planning permission for the building to allow its use for the sale of a wider range of goods to including furniture, domestic electrical appliances, carpets and rugs, china and glass, soft furnishings, lighting, curtains and home wares. The proposals, involving 2,170m2 gross floor space, were intended to facilitate the occupation of the building by Next as a “Home” store. The application was refused, the stated reasons being that the proposal would be likely to undermine the policies and strategies to safeguard, sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of the town centres of Hedge End and Eastleigh and that the development is not in a location which is, or can be made, fully accessible by a choice of means of transport for the use proposed.

13. The applicant appealed against the decision but the appeal was dismissed. The inspector, whilst accepting that there was quantitative need for the development, concluded that there were sequentially preferable sites that, even if not acceptable to Next, could be “occupied by other furniture and home ware retailers with different business models and customer bases”. She concluded that “there is a real risk that varying the condition as proposed would have a prejudicial effect upon future investment needed to ensure that Eastleigh town centre prospers. It would also undermine the importance placed on town centres in existing and emerging local and regional strategies”. It is also worthy of note that the Inspector considered that “allowing this appeal would make it difficult for the Council to resist increasing the range of goods that could be sold from other locations throughout the established retail park at Hedge End, and in my view the cumulative impact of so doing would harm the vitality and viability of the Eastleigh and Hedge End centres”.

14. The inaccessibility of the site was also referred to by the inspector who considered that the proposal would fail to meet criterion (iv) of policy 134.TC (accessibility by a choice of means of transport) and would conflict with policy 100.T (development served by a range of modes of transport including walking, cycling and public transport) of the adopted Local Plan.

15. Turning to the site of the mill site itself, in August 2005 an application (ref F/05/54973) was received for the construction of 184 residential units on the land currently occupied by Wildern Mill. It was a high density scheme comprising 9 blocks of flats, 249 car parking spaces, landscaping and improvements to adjacent highway and cycle/pedestrian links. Planning permission was refused in November 2005 but the subsequent appeal was allowed in October 2006. Whilst the scheme has not been constructed, the development has been commenced and the permission therefore remains valid. The principle of residential development on this part of the Wildern Mill site must therefore be regarded as having been established.

Community Consultation

16. The NPPF illustrates the Government’s clear commitment to localism and devolving a greater degree of control and involvement to a more local level. This is made clear in paragraph 66 of the document which states that “…applicants will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community”, and that “…proposals that can demonstrate this in developing the design of the new development should be looked on more favourably”.

17. Prior to the application being submitted, the applicants held a public exhibition in July 2012, enabling residents and interested parties to view the development proposed for the site. The applicants have also attended HETC meetings and presented their proposals to Members at pre-application stage.

18. The community consultation resulted in 22 written/questionnaire responses of which 5 were supportive, 4 were objecting and 13 were neutral but raised points for consideration. Support was given to the design, positive use of site, provision of new jobs and improved footpath and cycle routes whilst concerns were raised in respect of flats/affordable housing, potential noise problems, increased traffic and the siting of the Turnpike Way access.

Representations received on submitted application

19. 67 local households were notified of the planning application and no neighbour representations were received. One objection has been received from the owner of the Bradbeer Retail Park at Hedge End,

suggesting that this site is a better option in terms of its available size and potential for linked trips and should be considered.

Consultation responses

20. Head of Regeneration & Planning Policy has raised an objection on grounds that the development is contrary to Development Plan policy and NPPF advice. The presumption in favour of sustainable development at the heart of the NPPF is on the basis that only proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

21. The current proposals for the Next “Home and Garden” store at Wildern Mill are not in accordance with the principles clearly set out in the development plan, in other sub-regional and local policies and in the NPPF, that new development for retail purposes should be focussed in town and city centres. At a time when all town centres are vulnerable to the changing nature of retailing and to the closure of existing businesses, it would be a mistake to support large-scale retail development proposals in an out-of-centre location. There is, therefore, a strong policy objection to the retail element of the current proposals. There is no objection in principle to the residential element of the scheme.

22. New retail development on the scale and in the out-of-centre location proposed, whilst superficially attractive and promising some short-term benefits, would not support the economies of the town and city centres of south Hampshire, would not support strong and vibrant communities and would not provide facilities that would be widely accessible to customers without access to a private car. It is accordingly not considered that the proposals constitute sustainable development and the application should therefore be refused. If, however, the Council considers that the benefits of this scheme outweigh the strong policy objections to the proposals it is suggested that some mitigation against the potential adverse impacts of the development should be sought, including: • a commitment by Next to continue trading from a store in Eastleigh town centre of at least the same floorspace as their current premises for not less than 10 years; • a commitment by Next to continue trading from a store or stores in Southampton city centre of at least the same floorspace as their current premises for not less than 10 years; • restrictions on the goods that can be sold from the new store to exclude food and drink (other than for consumption on the premises), pharmaceuticals, stationery, books and magazines, music and entertainment media and toys; • a restriction on the amount of floorspace in the store to be devoted to the sale or display of clothes, shoes and fashion goods to a maximum of 2,724m2 net;

• restrictions preventing any subdivision of the retail unit or its occupation or use by more than one retailer and preventing any in- store concessions or trading by other retailers; and • financial contributions to the continuing programme of environmental improvements in Eastleigh town centre

23. In respect of the design and construction aspects of the proposal, there is also an objection on grounds that the retail development does not meet BREEAM Excellent standard and that the majority of dwellings do not meet the draft EBLP policy DM29 on minimum internal space standards, the communal amenity space for the flats is too small, potential shading of some private and communal gardens, the absence of brick plinths for front railings and to the unattractive outlook onto car parking for plots 25-28.

24. Head of Transportation & Engineering – no objection to amended plans subject to provision of parking as proposed, sustainable transport measures and conditions.

25. Head of Environmental Health - raises no objection subject to conditions

26. Head of Countryside & Trees - has raised no objection in respect of biodiversity and trees, subject to conditions.

27. Head of Housing Services – target 35% on site provision of affordable housing sought in accordance with policy/Affordable Housing SPD.

28. Head of Direct Services – no objection subject to SPD compliance. Bins to be provided at developers’ expense.

29. Environment Agency has raised no objection subject to conditions for surface water drainage.

30. HCC Highways has made the following comments

31. HCC Archaeology has confirmed there are no archaeological issues.

32. Natural England standing advice met.

33. Winchester with Eastleigh Design Review Panel raised concerns in respect of the pre-application plans regarding the orientation of dwellings, the design quality of the retail store’s east elevation, the abrupt ending to the colonnade, the need for a robust landscape screening framework, the level of sustainability for the retail building and general concerns regarding cramped form.

34. Crime Prevention Advisor has raised no objection subject to lighting provision for footpath/cycleway.

35. Eastleigh & District Disability Forum support retail scheme subject to full provision for disabled access.

36. Hedge End Town Council has raised no objection.

37. Southern Water have advised regarding the sewer crossing site and its diversion and need to ensure flow does not exceed existing approved levels, otherwise improvements to existing sewer network are needed. SUDS should have long term management provisions and full details should be provided (condition recommended). There is also a 100mm public water main within the site.

38. Economic Development Manager referred to concerns regarding possible detrimental impact on Eastleigh town centre. Mitigation including retention of Next store in town centre and contributions towards development of a Business Improvement District sought.

39. Southampton City Council – objection. Concerns regarding direct competition with city centre shops and that the relatively low predicted % impact is likely to be higher. The NPPF test of “significant adverse impact” should be considered in a broader context than actual predicted impact and should take into account draw from Next’s existing city centre stores and the risk of one store closing/risk that other store operators may not invest in city centre. The proposal will encourage a switch in shopping trips from the city centre to an out of centre site which is less accessible for non-car users. Development is contrary to NPPF’s retail and transport policies. Without prejudice conditions limiting goods sold to those proposed requested.

40. Winchester City Council – no comments to make.

41. Fareham Borough Council – objection as no specific impact information for Fareham town centre.

42. Highways Agency – no objection

43. County Children’s Services – advise that no education contributions are required as schools have capacity and existing permission regarded as commitment.

44. HCC Access Development Officer – no objection.

45. Eastleigh Ramblers – objection to technical details of improved footpath/cycleway. No objection in principle to footway/cycleway improvements.

46. West End Parish Council – no comments received.

47. Turnpike Action Group Residents Association – no comments received.

48. Eastleigh Town Centre Partnership – no comments received.

49. Hampshire Chamber of Commerce – support proposals – consultation with the local community and businesses has been comprehensive and consider proposals to be a balanced a resourceful solution for the site. Support high quality of development and job creation offered.

National Policy Context

50. Relevant sections of the National Planning Policy Framework include the following:

• paragraph 14 sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision making this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting planning permission unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly outweigh the benefits

• paragraph 17 sets out core planning principles. Planning should, inter alia: o proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs; o always seek to secure high quality design; o support the transition to a low carbon future; o encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed; o actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling.

• paragraphs 18 and 19 define the Government’s commitment to securing economic growth and to ensuring that the planning system supports sustainable growth.

• paragraph 23 seeks to promotes the vitality of town centres as the heart of their communities. Planning policies should be positive, promote competitive town centres providing consumer choice and allocate sites to meet retail and other needs. Appropriate edge-of- centre sites that are well-connected to the town centre should be allocated for town centre uses where suitable and viable town centre sites are not available.

• paragraph 24 states that "Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date local plan" noting that "When considering edge-of-centre

and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre". It goes on to say that "Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale".

• paragraph 26 states that "When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date local plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment …. This should include the impact of the proposal on existing and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area …”

• paragraph 27 advises that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impacts it should be refused

• paragraph 34 states that "Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised”

• paragraph 35 goes on to say "Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people"

• paragraph 47 requires local authorities to meet full, objectively assessed needs for affordable and market housing and to identify a 5-year supply of deliverable housing land.

51. The NPPF maintains the well-established “town centres first” approach to retail development. Whilst the NPPF has replaced a plethora of national planning guidance including PPGs and PPSs, their accompanying practice guidance notes including the “Practice Guidance Note on Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach”, previously issued in connection with PPS4 “Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth”, remains in force and this is accepted by the applicants. The areas of assessment and the methods set out in the Guidance Note have been used to guide the structure, content and methods of the retail work undertaken by the applicants to support this application.

The Development Plan and Related Documents

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

53. The current development plan comprises the South East Plan (the SEP) and the saved policies of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001 -2011)(the EBLPR). From March 2013 policies should be given weight according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. The Localism Bill supports the move for more decisions being made at a local rather than a regional level and under the Localism Act, the Secretary of State has the power to revoke regional strategies by order. The Government has stated its intention to withdraw the regional spatial strategies but it has not yet done so and the SEP therefore remains a material consideration.

South East Plan (Adopted May 2009)

54. Policy H1 in the SEP sets regional housing targets which are district- specific. These will, in time, be superseded by the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029 as it becomes an increasingly important material consideration.

55. Policy TC1 establishes a retail hierarchy, locally identifying Portsmouth and Southampton as Primary Regional Centres, and Eastleigh, Fareham and Winchester as Secondary Regional Centres. Policy TC2 advises local authorities that they should direct growth firstly to the Primary Regional Centres and then to the Secondary Regional Centres. Portsmouth and Southampton are identified as “centres for significant change” and as such will operate as regional hubs experiencing significant growth in their centres.

56. Policy TC3 states "No need has been identified for any further out-of- centre regional or sub-regional shopping centres or large scale extensions to such existing centres during the period to 2026. The role and regeneration of town centres should not be undermined by an intensification of such development".

57. In the south Hampshire section of the SEP, policy SH4 states that the overall policy for the main town centres is to develop their individual character and complementary roles through a proactive programme of high quality mixed use developments. More detailed guidance is provided for Southampton, Portsmouth, Fareham and Eastleigh. Policy SH4 iv states that in Eastleigh the development plan document will "develop town centre capacity through redevelopment to provide high density, high quality retail, leisure and office employment schemes" and that "a proactive approach is needed to deliver new strategic town centre opportunities". Out-of-centre development will, it says, “be limited to existing allocations up to 2016”.

58. Other relevant SEP policies are:

• Policy SP3 – Urban focus and Renaissance – seeks to concentrate development within urban areas in order to foster accessibility to employment, housing and retail uses in order to reduce the need to travel. • Policy CC1 – Sustainable Development – seeks to support sustainable development • Policy CC2 – Climate Change – supports policies in Local Plans to address climate change issues • Policy CC4 – Sustainable Design and Construction – supports policies to achieve this.

Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001 – 2011 (May 2006)

59. In the adopted EBLPR the application site is within the urban edge but is not subject to any specific notation. There is therefore a presumption in favour of development or redevelopment subject to the specific relevant policies within the plan.

60. Saved Policy 134.TC is a criteria-based policy controls out-of-centre or edge-of-centre development:

61. “Out-of-centre or edge-of-centre development for retail, leisure, office or other town centre uses will only be permitted if it meets all the following criteria:

• there is a demonstrable need for the development; • there are no suitable, viable and available sites or premises for the proposed use within an existing centre or edge-of-centre location (in that order of preference) having demonstrated realistic flexibility on format, design and car parking provision and the scope for disaggregation; • it will not by itself or cumulatively with other recently completed or permitted schemes undermine any Council strategy to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of existing town centres and the roles of other centres; • It is genuinely accessible by a choice of means of transport, and • It will not increase the need to travel overall.”

62. Supporting text at paragraph 8.32 states that development permitted by this policy will have conditions attached limiting the range of goods which can be sold, restricting internal alterations that would increase trading floorspace and restricting sub-division.

63. Although the adopted Local Plan is in a number of respects now out-of- date, the policies relating to retail development generally accord with the principles set out in the NPPF and remain justified by the more recent Southampton and Eastleigh Retail Study. They are accordingly

still relevant. The NPPF does not, however, now include a demonstrable need test and this no longer needs to be shown.

64. Other relevant saved EBLPR policies are:

• 16.NC – seeks enhancements to nature conservation where opportunities exist in connection with development • 28.ES – (Waste collection and recycling) – design and layout requirements in residential schemes for storage and collection of domestic waste and recyclables • 34.ES – (reducing green house gases) – requires proposals to make an appropriate contribution towards the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by ensuring the most sustainable construction materials/methods, minimising energy demands, maximise energy from renewable sources • 35.ES – (contaminated land) – requires sufficient information to show that potentially contaminated land can and will be adequately remediated to a standard suitable for the proposed end use • 37.ES – (renewable energy and efficient use of resources) – requires consideration to issues of maximising energy efficiency, need to reduce water consumption, need to minimise waste, opportunities to extend the useful life of buildings/adaptability to other uses • 45.ES – (Sustainable drainage) – requires proposals to provide adequate surface water disposal measures, including source control measures and sustainable drainage systems • 59.BE – (Design Criteria) - general design criteria with which all proposals must comply • 62.BE – (Disabled access) – requires proposals to take account of needs of people with impaired mobility and/or vision • 63.BE (Criteria for car park design) – general design criteria for car parking associated with new development • 74.H – (Affordable Housing) – target of 35% of new dwellings on site to be affordable. Affordable housing to be provided on all sites capable of accommodating 15 or more dwellings. • 100.T – (Transport and new development) – requires developments to be well served by public transport, cycling and walking; requires measures to minimise impact of proposals; requires large generators of journeys to be located to minimise travel and provide choices of modes of transport; requires Transport Assessments where appropriate. • 102.T – (new access) – new or improved access only permitted if it does not interfere with safety/function/standard of road network or have adverse environmental implications • 104.T – (parking) – requires proposals to provide adequate off- highway parking up to the maximum standard • 147.OS – sets out public open space requirements for new development

• 190.IN – infrastructure provision – will only permit developments where adequate services and infrastructure available or can be provided

Southampton and Eastleigh Retail Study 2011

65. As part of work on the new local plan for the borough, in 2010 the Council and Southampton City Council commissioned consultants GVA to provide advice on the need and capacity for new retail development across the area of the two authorities. The study projected an increase in comparison goods expenditure of 84% over the 2011 to 2026 period, but noted the anticipated growth in internet retailing. However this was optimistic and in reality there is likely to be little growth for several more years.

66. On the basis of these forecasts, the study concluded that the retail demand would justify significant additional comparison goods retail floorspace in Southampton city centre (although not as much as has been planned for in the City Council’s core strategy) and some limited additional floorspace in Eastleigh town centre.

67. Noting that Eastleigh town centre faced increasing competition from Southampton and Winchester city centres the study concluded that “we do not consider that there is any need to plan for additional out-of- centre floor space capacity” and that “the Council should consider carefully proposals for additional out-of-centre retail provision which could potentially undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre”.

68. In relation to “bulky goods” retailing, the study concluded that “we have not identified any apparent need for additional bulky goods provision”.

Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 – 2029

69. The pre-submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029 (August 2012) includes the site within the urban edge but it is not allocated for any specific use. The policies map identifies the strip of land fronting Turnpike Way to the south of the site as a “local nature conservation site” (policy DM9). The emerging Plan has been considerably delayed. As an unadopted plan, Members should note that its policies carry little weight in the consideration of this proposal.

70. At Chapter 3 of the Plan which sets out the vision, point 8 states "Eastleigh town centre and other district and local centres will be prosperous and thriving places serving the economic, community and cultural needs of residents and south Hampshire. Existing out-of-centre shopping facilities that serve the borough and south Hampshire are likely to remain but will not include new retail development that threatens the other shopping centres in the Borough”.

71. Among the objectives of the Plan, objective xi promotes the regeneration of Eastleigh town centre and objective xii seeks to promote the regeneration of district and local centres (including Hedge End centre), "ensuring that these provide a range of accessible retail, leisure, cultural and other community facilities and services".

72. Strategic policy S1 - Sustainable Development at iii states that to be sustainable new development in the borough should “Maintain and help to grow a high-performing local economy that benefits the borough, south Hampshire and the wider economy without adverse impacts on south Hampshire's city centres, the quality of the local environment or local transport networks".

73. Policy S2 – New development sets out the intention to deliver 9,400 new homes during the plan period, noting that within the urban edge there is a presumption in favour of new development, subject to the policies of the plan.

74. Policy DM19 states that "retail development will be permitted in the defined centres as set out in the policies map". It goes on to say that retail development over 500m² will not be permitted outside these centres unless it is within the urban edge and “it will not by itself or cumulatively with other proposals undermine the vitality or viability of any existing centre". The policy also requires a sequential test to be undertaken to examine alternative sites for the development and for sites to be sustainably located in terms of accessibility by modes of transport other than the private car.

75. Explanatory text at paragraph 5.87 explains that, "The Borough Council seeks to focus retail activity within the defined town, district and local centres in the borough, and to avoid developments outside these centres that would compromise their viability and vitality by drawing trade away from them. In applying the sequential test consideration will be given to the impact on, and opportunities within, other retail centres outside of the borough's boundary including the City of Southampton".

76. Policy DM23 of the Plan concerns transport and accessibility. It states that all new development must have safe and convenient access to the road network and make provision for access to, and by, other transport modes including public transport and cycle and pedestrian routes. 77. The draft Local Plan has reached its pre-submission consultation stage and the weight to be attached to it policies is increasing although it does not yet outweigh the weight given to the saved policies of the adopted plan.

78. Other relevant policies for consideration are:

• Policy DM1 - General Criteria for New Development- seeks high design quality, and sustainability.

• Policy DM2 – Environmentally Sustainable Development – all non- residential development should achieve BREEAM “excellent” and incorporate energy-efficient passive solar design principles, provision of significant proportion of energy from on-site low/zero carbon sources, connect to any existing near/adjacent low carbon local energy network unless unviable, contribute to Council’s ‘allowable solutions’ low carbon projects where required, use sustainable construction materials, be designed to allow flexible uses, provide post-occupancy evaluation on sustainability. • Policy DM3 – encouragement of zero and low carbon energy. • Policy DM6 – Sustainable surface water management – provision of sustainable drainage systems. • Policy DM7 – Pollution – development to take account of possible air, water, land and light pollution. • Policy DM8 – Telecommunications – infrastructure to be incorporated within new developments. • Policy DM9 – Biodiversity – protection of International or European nature conservation sites, protection of nationally designated sites and local biodiversity, seeks to find opportunities for creation/enhancement of habitats and features of nature conservation interest. • Policy DM24 – Parking – off-highway parking required, overprovision of parking spaces only where this will assist overall viability and vitality of town centre. Proposals for new car parks considered only where it is the only way to serve new development and off-site highway improvements funded where necessary. • Policy DM28 – Affordable Housing – target of 35% affordable provision on sites of 15 units or more and Council will take into account viability of proposal and its contribution towards mixed, balanced, sustainable communities. • Policy DM29 – Minimum internal space standards set. • Policy DM37 – Funding infrastructure – developer must have made arrangements for provision of/contributions to improvement of infrastructure, services, facilities or amenities necessitated by development, via S106 and/or CIL when relevant arrangements are in place within the Borough.

PUSH Spatial Strategy

79. Recognising that the economic position of the country had changed considerably since the SEP was prepared; the authorities within the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) approved a revised economic strategy for the sub-region in 2010 which took account of the continuing recession and the reduced levels of growth that could be anticipated. The strategy noted that the retail sector and the jobs that it sustains is crucial to the sub-region.

80. The economic strategy was followed in October 2012 by the joint preparation and adoption of a revised spatial strategy for the area. It is not a statutory plan but is a jointly agreed and approved framework to inform and support the preparation of statutory plans. It accords with the principles of the NPPF and fulfils a part of the duty to cooperate between authorities enshrined in the Localism Act.

81. The strategy maintains the “town centres first “ principle of earlier plans and of the NPPF and retains the retail hierarchy identified in the SEP. The strategy acknowledges earlier (2005) estimates of the need for additional comparison goods floorspace stating at policy 10, inter alia, that: “Portsmouth and Southampton are defined as Regional City Centres while Eastleigh and Fareham are defined as Large Town Centres. Major comparison goods retail developments and other town centre uses of a large scale, should be located in these centres” and that “The expansion of out-of-centre retailing and leisure development will be restricted”.

Supplementary Planning Documents

• Relevant Supplementary Planning Documents for consideration are: • Quality Places (November 2011) • Affordable Housing (July 2009) • Environmentally Sustainable Development (March 2009) • Planning Obligations (July 2008) • Residential Parking Standards (January 2009) • Biodiversity (2009)

Assessment of Proposal

Principle

82. The site itself lies within the urban edge, in an established mixed retail and residential area, with houses lying to the east of the site. The site has been vacant for a number of years now and is falling into disrepair, adding very little to the amenity of the area. There are extant and part implemented permissions for both uses within the site which establish both the principles of residential and bulky goods retail redevelopment as being acceptable.

83. In 2005 the Council prepared an informal development brief, outlining the aspirations for the redevelopment of the site. Whilst the suggested high density nature of housing is now out of step with the current housing market, the principle of a vehicular access off Turnpike Way in the same location as now proposed is firmly established and is confirmed by the extant planning permission.

84. The proposed uses are therefore considered acceptable in principle in planning policy terms. The specific detail, scale and impacts of the

development must, however, be considered acceptable before permission can be granted.

Retail considerations

85. Whilst the principle of bulky goods retail development is accepted for the site, the proposals comprise substantially larger floorspace than previously permitted and introduce non bulky home and fashion goods. The raft of planning policies covering retail matters strongly encourages non bulky retailing to be located in existing town and city centres in the first instance and indeed Next trade from outlets in Southampton, Eastleigh and Fareham and it is their intention to continue to do so, as well as introducing a new store in Whiteley. However, in parallel to this, Next intend to introduce their new Home and Garden concept which combines both bulky and non-bulky goods in one large unit at a number of out of town sites nationwide. They have submitted a retail statement, prepared by retail consultants to address retail considerations.

86. Independent advice has been obtained from consultants GVA, who prepared the Southampton and Eastleigh Retail Study for the two authorities in 2011, on the submitted Retail Statement. The advice notes that the concentration of retail warehousing at Hedge End performs a significant comparison shopping role in the borough, with an estimated turnover almost three times the total turnover of Eastleigh town centre.

87. The advice draws attention to the fact that the proposals represent a deviation from the predominantly “bulky goods” nature of existing retail warehouse provision at Hedge End. It notes that the prolonged recession is continuing to constrain spending and this factor, alongside the shift towards internet shopping, is prompting retailers to move towards a smaller number of stores in larger centres as a part of a more strategic network of outlets. These challenges to the role of the traditional high street led Mary Portas in her Government- commissioned review (December 2011) to call for a strengthened “town centres first” policy on retail and other town centre uses. The NPPF of March 2012 retains that policy approach), although it does not go as far as Mary Portas would have liked.

88. The proposed retail store would constitute a substantial expansion of the retail floor space at Hedge End, some 4,657m2 larger than the extant planning permission on the site and being located on an out-of- centre site it appears to run counter to the objectives of retail planning policies which seek a town centre first approach and SEP policy which seeks to prevent any further intensification of out of town retailing. However, the site is already in retail use and the specific requirement of the NPPF paragraph 27 is that applications for out of centre developments should be refused only where they fail a sequential test or have a significant adverse impact on one or more of the following

factors: existing and proposed investment, vitality and viability, local consumer choice and trade.

89. EBLPR policy 134.TC also has criteria relating to the sequential test, impact on vitality and viability and accessibility which must be met.

90. These policy criteria are detailed and considered below alongside NPPF criteria:

Need

91. 134. TC (i) there is a demonstrable need for the development; the need test is not required by the NPPF and no longer considered a relevant or necessary criteria for the retail assessment. It is not, therefore, now required to be assessed for this application.

Sequential Test

92. 134.TC (ii) there are no suitable, viable and available sites or premises for the proposed use within an existing centre or edge-of- centre location (in that order of preference) having demonstrated realistic flexibility on format, design and car parking provision and the scope for disaggregation;

93. A catchment area for the proposed store has been defined using data including Marks and Spencer’s current trade draw and data from recent openings of Next Home and Garden stores elsewhere in the country which indicate the distances customers would travel to the store. The GVA advice considers the approach adopted by the applicants to the definition of the catchment area for a store at Hedge End to be robust and the assumption made that the proposed Next store would draw trade from a similar catchment to the existing retailers at Hedge End to be reasonable.

94. The retail statement accompanying the planning application includes a sequential test for other sequentially preferable town centre and edge of centre locations within this catchment, including a number of sites in and around Eastleigh town centre. The applicants have demonstrated that the development proposed cannot be accommodated on these sites because they are not suitable or that the sites are not available or viable for their development. This is correct at this moment in time. However, the applicants have not shown flexibility about the scale and format of the development proposed (it is the “store concept” which is part of the retailer’s business plan with the clothing element making the rest viable). They argue that their range of stores overall in their portfolio, including town centre ones, show the flexibility in store size and format advocated by the NPPF. It is also evident that even if the store size were substantially reduced, there are no currently available sites in Eastleigh centre which could accommodate it. The sequential

test provisions do not require the applicants to look at Bradbeer Retail Park or any other out of town locations as alternatives.

95. The Planning Policy Manager considers that the applicants should extend their sequential test site search to larger centres in south Hampshire and that they should examine the potential of sites in Southampton or Fareham and possibly Winchester or Portsmouth. However, this view is not supported by either retail consultant advising on the scheme as they do not fall within the primary catchment area. The conclusion is therefore that the NPPF and Development Plan sequential test policy criteria 134.TC (ii) have been met in this instance.

Quantative Impacts

96. Paragraph 26 of the NPPF requires considered of the impact of proposed out-of-centre developments on the following two criteria:

• the impact on existing, committed and planned public and private sector investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposals; • the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time when the application is made.

Existing and Proposed Investment

97. Whilst there is no current evidence that significant investment in Eastleigh town centre is likely to be affected by the applicants’ proposals, there is the concern expressed by Southampton City Council and the Planning Policy and Design Manager that new retail development on the scale and in the out-of-centre location proposed would not support the economies of the town and city centres of south Hampshire, and would not support strong and vibrant communities. Investment in other centres, including Southampton, Fareham, Portsmouth, Winchester and Whiteley could be adversely affected by further retail development at Hedge End if permitted.

98. The Planning Policy and Design Manager considers that in a recession- hit retail and development environment, with only low economic growth in prospect for some years, it must be a fact that a multi-million pound investment out-of-centre at Hedge End will mean less investment in one or more of the sub-region’s shopping centres. There is also the suggestion that Next may withdraw from existing town centre shops, so reducing their investment in centres. Next have existing shops in Eastleigh, Southampton (2) and Fareham and are investing in the new development at Whiteley. They have said that they intend to continue trading from these premises and the Southampton stores in particular are trading very well. There is a draft Section 106 agreement in place which requires Next to continue trading in Eastleigh town centre for the

next 7 years, but they have not formally committed to retaining other stores. Next have also been unable to commit to moving to a larger town centre store in Eastleigh which would have demonstrated further investment in the town centre. Thus, although there is an opportunity to ensure the continued presence in the town centre by the applicants, and this is a significant material consideration which would provide mitigation against out of town store impacts which other retailers may not be able to offer, there remains a risk that by granting permission for this development potential investment in the town centres by Next and other retailers will be reduced.

99. Attention is drawn to SEP Policy TC3 which states that the regeneration of town centres should not be undermined by an intensification of out- of-centre development at regional/sub-regional centres. As the proposals increase retail floorspace and include non-bulky goods they are an intensification of retailing on an out of centre site. As such, the proposed retail development fails to comply with this policy if the view is taken that the regeneration of town centres is undermined.

100. In considering town centre investment matters, the appeal dismissal for the Next proposals in 2008 for the adjacent site has been reviewed. The previous appeal inspector’s view that the relaxation of the restriction on the goods that might be sold from an existing unit at Hedge End could prejudice investment in Eastleigh town centre is relevant.

101. It is considered, therefore, that there is a risk that the Council’s objective of regenerating Eastleigh town centre would be undermined, contrary to SEP Policy TC3 and NPPF objectives.

Vitality and Viability

102. Policy 134.TC (iii) it will not by itself or cumulatively with other recently completed or permitted schemes undermine any Council strategy to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of existing town centres and the roles of other centres

103. The application’s retail statement includes a detailed retail impact assessment. Its town centre “health check” assessment shows that Eastleigh town centre is generally performing well and is able to withstand any minor impacts. However, the earlier Southampton and Eastleigh Retail Study concluded that “given the existing vulnerabilities of the town centre and competition faced by competing centres and out- of-centres provision, the Council should consider carefully proposals for additional out-of-centre retail provision which could potentially undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre”.

104. In assessing the predicted retail impacts, the Council’s consultants raised concerns about the estimated turnover and trade draw from existing Hedge End stores of the new store and considered it to have

been underestimated. However, the applicants argue that the turnover levels used are derived from specific considerations relevant to the Hedge End site and from “actual” trading records held by Next, rather than from general published estimates, and this is accepted.

105. The applicants have illustrated the possible impact of the proposals on Eastleigh and Southampton centres and adjusted their trading assumptions to reflect the views of the Council’s consultants. These illustrate a ‘worst-case’ scenario of the possible impact of the proposals of 0.39% on Eastleigh town centre and 0.37% on Southampton city centre. No assessment has been made of the impact on other centres and this is the basis of the objection from Fareham BC. The greatest percentage impact on other retail areas is on the other out-of-centre stores at Hedge End (1.86%) but impact on these other stores is not a material planning consideration. There is no identified impact on Hedge End centre. These levels of predicted impact cannot be considered on their own to represent a significant adverse impact.

106. The scale and nature of the Wildern Mill proposals is such that they will compete directly with Southampton city centre and, to a lesser extent, with Eastleigh and other centres such as Fareham, Winchester and Portsmouth. In representations on the application Southampton City Council has noted that the proposal is broadly equivalent to 5% of the city centre’s total clothing floorspace and that it will compete directly with stores such as IKEA, Furniture Village and Next Home itself selling ‘home’ goods and ‘department stores’ such as John Lewis, BHS and Debenhams selling clothes and home goods. However, despite this competition, Southampton city centre is trading very well and the actual impacts are statistically very low and also cannot be considered to be “significantly adverse”.

107. These very low impacts are not too surprising and do not in themselves result in conflict with the vitality and viability policy test. It is accepted that the proposal will clearly not fundamentally undermine Southampton’s regional shopping centre role or threaten its viability. No individual retail outlet would ever be likely to have a significant impact against the overall turnover of a regional centre or even possibly a town centre, but the principles underpinning the NPPF also point to the need for a broader perspective as also advocated by the PUSH strategy detailed above.

108. The proposals would reinforce the advantages of out-of-centre retailing and result in a potential cumulative impact if other similar applications were to be permitted. This pattern of retailing which may occur could be at the expense of, and to the detriment of, the overall attractiveness, vitality and viability of the city and town centres of south Hampshire. There have been no recent applications for large-scale out of town retail development and thus there is currently no evidence of cumulative impact at this time, but the risk of this cumulative impact is relevant. Therefore, the advice of the Planning Policy and Design

Manager is that the proposals conflict with EBLPR Policy 134.TC (iii), Policy DM19 of the Pre-submission Consultation EBLP and the NPPF.

Consumer Choice

109. The proposed store would offer a wide range of goods in a modern, purpose-built building with free car parking close to a motorway junction. It would strengthen the attractiveness, choice and retail offer of the out-of-centre retailing at Hedge End as a regional shopping destination and increase consumer choice. It is suggested by objectors that the store would draw trade away from Next’s two existing stores in the city centre and increasingly, therefore, from other retailers in the city centre, so reducing city centre consumer choice. However, Next’s experience throughout the country is that their stores in and out of town trade successfully alongside each other, even when located closer than Hedge End to other town centres. They are one of the few current retailers who are expanding their business and successfully operating in both town centre and out of town locations. As already detailed, there is no intention to cease trading from any nearby town or city centre and reduce choice.

110. Next Plc, as proposed occupier of the retail unit, have been specifically considered in respect of their retail portfolio and the mitigation and investment opportunities they can offer to control retail impact. As applicants they are not proposing the stark choice between town centre or out of town retailing: their successful business plan offers both and will continue to do so. The S106 agreement secures this and conditions recommended include a requirement that Next be first occupier of the proposed development. Conditions would also limit the total retail floorspace and goods which could be sold, so preventing the use of the building by other retailers who may have more retail impact.

111. There is no clear evidence that town centre vitality and viability through local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer would be significantly harmed through this application, but there is the risk that in combination with other similar out of centre developments this could be the case.

Economic Regeneration

112. The Borough has recently been affected by the loss of retail jobs at Comet and Jessops (adjoining the application site) and the 220 part time and full time jobs which would be created would be a significant boost to the local employment market. Additionally, construction work would result for both the housing and retail elements and this would be accompanied by an Employment Skills Management Plan delivering apprenticeships and other employee skills to local people.

113. The economic regeneration resulting from the scheme would be a significant strand of the site’s delivery of sustainable development. The

positive economic impact is also supported by Development Plan policies and the NPPF paragraph 19 states that planning should encourage and not act as impediment to sustainable growth, and as such “significant weight” should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.

Housing Land Supply

114. The National Planning Policy Framework supports sustainable housing development generally, and especially where there isn’t a 5-year housing land supply. This is borne out by ministerial statements and appeal decisions in recent months – where there isn’t a 5-year supply of housing land, there is a presumption in favour of granting permission for new dwellings, unless significant harm would result. 115. Eastleigh Borough doesn’t have a 5-year housing land supply and therefore the grant of permission for the proposed dwellings would assist in a relatively small way in increasing the much-needed supply. As the developers have indicated that they would wish to start on site as soon as possible, a two-year permission to assist with deliverability within 5 years is recommended. Accessibility

116. Policy 134.TC (iv) It is genuinely accessible by a choice of means of transport

117. The need for sustainable development to be located in sites which are accessible by a choice of modes of transport and can genuinely deliver sustainable travel patterns is a common thread throughout the NPPF and Development Plan Policy. It was also a key consideration for the previous Next proposals at the adjoining retail unit. Accepting that a bulky goods retailer will, by its very nature, attract car-borne customers, critical to the support of the scheme is the delivery of improved options for sustainable transport which would genuinely result in travel to and from the site by residents, staff and customers by modes other than the car when car use is not essential. Previous applications for Next at Unit 2 and indeed the application site itself have not fully addressed this matter in the depth now required by planning policy and the current proposals now offer an improved set of provisions to ensure that the relevant criteria can now be met. These include:

• The provision of an extended, widened, and lit combined footway/cycleway between Charles Watts Way and Turnpike Way with links into the retail and residential sites. This would be adopted along its full length and would significantly improve current pedestrian and cyclists’ accessibility. It is identified for improvement on the Borough’s Cycle Map. • Funding for a footway/cycleway link between Turnpike Way and Hedge End Centre through Greta Park, providing the missing part of a direct link between the centre and the site.

• Funding for other sustainable transport schemes within the Eastleigh Borough Council’s District Transport Statement including improvements to the Charles Watts Way/Tollbar Way junction to improve pedestrian safety, Real-time information (Eastleigh Quality Bus Partnership) including route Southampton- Hedge End, and journey planning information in Hedge End. • Provision of traffic calming in Turnpike Way (following public consultation) to include an uncontrolled crossing point. • A Travel Plan for the Next store relating to staff and customers. This sets out a strategy to help reduce the number and length of car trips generated by the development.

118. Whilst accepting that the location is not and cannot be as sustainable as a town centre site, it is an existing urban site which is well-served by local buses, including several services along Turnpike Way ,which link well with the proposed enhanced footways. It is also within acceptable walking distance of other local facilities and fits the “pedshed” criteria given in the Quality Places SPD.

119. The potential for linked trips which can also reduce the overall need to travel is also supported by the Transport Assessment evidence.

120. On balance, and subject to the delivery of all the proposed improvements to sustainable transport through a combination of on-site works and off-site works funded by planning obligations, it is considered that the accessibility criteria (iv) and (v) of Policy 134.TC; Policy 100.T and 191.IN of the EBLPR and Policy DM23 of the pre-submission plan can now be met, as can the requirements of paragraph 34 of the NPPF and the SE Plan. This view is supported by HCC Highways.

Traffic Generation and Impact

121. Policy 134.TC (v) it will not increase the need to travel overall. The NPPF does not include the EBLPR criteria on the overall need to travel and this criterion can only be given limited weight.

122. In addition to paragraphs 34 and 35 on sustainable transport, NPPF paragraph 32 identifies three specific transport elements which should be taken into account. They are:

• Whether the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up (dealt with above) • Whether safe and suitable access can be achieved; and • Whether improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development.

123. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of a development are severe.

124. Whilst there is an accepted fallback position in respect of traffic impact relating to the existing planning permissions for the site and indeed previous site uses, it is clear that traffic generation for the site will, at times, increase as a result of the proposed development. The residential development would have normal AM and PM peaks, but at 41 units is significantly less (around 35-40 each peak hour) than the previously permitted 184 units would have generated. In contrast, the retail traffic impacts would be greater but would be spread across the day and into the evenings. Peaks for the Next store would be at weekends and on bank holidays/Sale days.

125. Traffic surveys for Charles Watts Way/Junction 7 reveal Saturday early afternoon peaks to be the highest of an average week. The proposed retail use would add around 127 two way trips to the site per hour to this peak. Around 100% of car trips to the Next store would be new to the local road network; 10% would be already passing the site on Charles Watts Way and 80% would be diverting from other stores (41% of these from stores in the Hedge End area).

126. Four relevant highway junctions have been assessed for capacity against specific DfT and Highways Agency guidance and the Transport Assessment has then been reviewed by HCC as Highways Authority and the Highways Agency. The conclusions are that there is no need to alter the existing Hedge End Retail Park access and that Junction 7 and both Turnpike Way junctions would continue to operate within capacity. Surveys of general congestion on Charles Watts Way revealed that the cause is due to conditions on the wider highway network to the west of Kanes Hill roundabout that leads to traffic queuing back to J7 and affecting its operation. The overall conclusion that despite the predicted weekend traffic growth, the existing road network, including the Charles Watts Way access and egress, has capacity to accommodate the new development is agreed by HCC Highways. The weekend peak increases are to be expected but would not reach the “severe” impact test set by the NPPF.

127. Pedestrian and road safety improvements for Turnpike Way, through the provision of traffic calming and two crossing points using build outs are part of the application proposals. These were previously proposed and already have HCC Highways Section 278 Agreement approval.

Car Parking

128. Following scheme amendments, both the residential and retail elements of the proposal now meet the relevant Residential Parking Standards SPD and HCC guidance for on-site car parking provision. Appropriate provision is also made for cycles and disabled parking. Retail store parking totals 206 spaces to the rear of the store and a zebra crossing is also proposed to link the store’s western entrance with the rest of the retail park’s stores and car parking. A car park

management plan would be necessary for weekends, Bank Holidays and sale days so as to avoid vehicles backing up onto the highway.

129. NPPF guidance and Development Plan policies in respect of transport considerations are considered to be met including SEP S6; Saved Policies 59.BE (v), 101.T and 104.T of the EBLPR and Policies DM19, DM23 and DM24 of the Pre Submission Consultation EBLP.

Retail Development Layout and Design

130. The retail proposal comprises a main store building with accommodation on three levels and a conservatory type structure on the western elevation adjacent to the garden centre glazed screened enclosure. Store entrances are in the western elevation facing the remainder of the retail park and in the southern elevation fronting the car park.

131. It is sited close to Charles Watts Way and, at a depth of 87m and height of 8.45m average to the front and 12.7m car park side, would be a large and visually imposing new development. However, it is a well-designed high quality proposal which has had regard to its prominence when viewed from the road, footways and pedestrian footbridge, and the existing topography is well-used in the split levels. Its use of natural limestone and glazing as its principal materials and its visual presence would improve the site and its immediate environs and although the building is large, the site is not open to any significant long vistas and it does not need to be screened by other buildings. Indeed, it would provide a more vibrant and active frontage than existing, with the first floor café also facing the main road. Amendments to improve the building’s eastern elevation which is now to be brick and timber clad rather than metal-clad have been now also been proposed which address Design Review Panel concerns. Roof plant and roof-top photovoltaic panels are set back from the building edge so as to minimise their visual impact.

132. Existing mature tree belt screening adjacent to the western public footpath assists in screening the development from the residential estate to the east, and properties do not directly overlook the site. It also provides a backdrop to the development when viewed from the west from Charles Watts Way. Links to the footpath network and other retail units are provided to improve permeability. The extensive glazing also provides overlooking of the rear car park, which combined with CCTV and other measures meets crime prevention need

Residential Development Design and Layout

133. Located within the southern part of the site but north of the existing SINC woodland and stream, is the 41-unit residential element of the proposals. Separate vehicular access as previously approved off Turnpike Way is proposed and this is combined with the proposed

improvements to the footway between Turnpike Way and Charles Watts Way.

134. The rectangular site has the main constraints of retail developments and associated car parks/delivery points and external plant to the north and west and existing trees and woodland to the south and east. The layout proposed responds to these and also the opportunities for an enhanced outlook the woodland in particular can offer. A single access road positioned to provide a gap between the woodland and housing so as to avoid excessive shading results, with a series of smaller housing courts leading off. This layout has been amended to address in part design officer and Design Review Panel concerns. The predominantly family dwellings are 2-storey, with the exception of a 3-storey building for 12 flats which is positioned at the western end of the road and its associated vista. There is no direct visual link to nearby residential cul- de-sacs, but the use of traditional designs and materials do provide local consistency. The net density of 47 dph is relatively high but maximises the site’s potential and is appropriate to its context. Car parking is in a mixture of allocated and unallocated frontage, rear, garage, and courtyard provision, using a variety of hard surfacing materials. Appropriate bin and cycle storage and boundary treatments are proposed following design amendments.

135. There are concerns raised by the Planning Policy and Design Manger that although there have been design improvements the scheme it is not fully compliant with all the detailed guidance within the Quality Places SPD. While these are acknowledged, the overall design approach and quality is sufficient that the development should be considered acceptable and would deliver a development with an attractive character and own identity. The minimum internal space standards sought by draft policy DM29 have given rise to objections and cannot yet be imposed.

Landscaping, Trees and Amenity

136. At the interface between the retail and residential elements of the scheme a 3-6m wide landscaping belt is proposed, to include tree planting, in addition to an acoustic fence. Whilst not excessive, it is sufficient to provide acceptable screening between the housing and retail uses for noise (including delivery vehicles), fumes and car lights. The extant planning permission for residential development permits the removal of trees to the immediate rear of the existing retail unit on the site for works for the road and improved footway. Subject to conditions, these works and also woodland management works in the SINC are acceptable.

137. As well as the necessary landscaped buffer planting, new tree planting across the whole development is proposed, assisting in extending the treed context of the site and meeting sustainable design objectives.

138. Amenity space in the form of private rear gardens for all houses and communal areas and balconies for the flats is proposed. With the exception of the communal garden space for the western flats, the applicants have demonstrated that the daylighting and amenity space aims of the Quality Places SPD have now been met. The flats, however, are substandard, although do overlook the adjoining woodland and design amendments have added balconies. This has resulted in an objection from the Council’s Design officer.

139. Overall, it is considered that despite some design shortcomings, the overall residential scheme is of sufficient mix and quality to be considered to be compliant with the general design policies Saved Policy 59.BE of the EBLP and Policy DM1 of the Pre-Submission Consultation EBLP and the design objectives of the NPPF.

Drainage

140. The application is supported by a Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy. This states that soakaways will be used to dispose of surface water, with all water generated by the development going to the ground. The proposals also show a water storage collection tank beneath the car park. An existing foul sewer would need to be diverted.

Sustainable Development

141. There are three strands to sustainable development advocated by the NPPF: economic/environmental/social, with the NPPF also giving a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

142. The economic and social benefits are referred to in paragraph 112 above, and locally the development of the part-derelict site into acceptable beneficial use is supported by Hedge End Town Council and others. It is notable that there has been no local objection to the proposals. Affordable housing provision is also a significant social benefit to the Borough.

143. Key to the sustainability consideration are also the environmental matters which are addressed by planning policies and the Council’s adopted Environmentally Sustainable Development SPD. Policies and guidance seek to encourage development to look for opportunities for the maximisation of energy efficiency in the interests of sustainable development and the minimisation of the impact of development upon climate change.

144. The application is supported by a Sustainability Statement which shows that the proposed residential development would be built to achieve Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, in line with the SPD. Measures such as optimising natural daylighting, use of PV panels, sustainable drainage and low water use fittings would be used for the residential units.

145. The sustainability considerations of the proposal also include the retail store. Whilst the design of the store does not allow complete accordance with the Council’s SPD on Environmentally Sustainable Development which seeks an “Excellent” level and a 15% reduction in carbon emissions, the development reaches midway between Very Good and Excellent. The retail proposals include extensive use of PVs on the roof, rainwater harvesting, sustainable drainage, air source heat pumps and low water use fittings. The site is not, however, served by gas, and the use selling lighting and home wares results in major energy demands for lighting and cooling. These factors contribute to the difficulties in achieving BREEAM Excellent without introducing very expensive solutions which do not fit with the retailing needs of this particular proposal.

146. Therefore, in recognition of the particular constraints of this application site and proposed use, an off-site contribution to the carbon fund is proposed to compensate for the shortfall below BREEAM Excellent in order to assist with the overall sustainability credentials of the development. This is recommended to be included as a Section 106 obligation.

147. Significant sustainable transport improvements are proposed within and off-site as detailed in paragraph 115 on accessibility.

148. On balance, the proposal is considered to be in overall accordance with both NRM11 and NRM12 of the South East Plan, 37.ES of the adopted Local Plan, DM2 of the pre-submission Local Plan and the Environmentally Sustainable Development SPD.

Biodiversity

149. The application is supported by an Ecological Assessment. Bat surveys in 2011 and 2012 show that the site has not recently been used by bats for roosting. Mitigation and enhancements in the form of additional bat roosting opportunities are incorporated within the new development and officers are confident that Natural England are unlikely to refuse a bat licence. Enhancements and improvements to the habitats present on the site can also be secured via the woodland management scheme for the SINC woodland. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has considered the proposals and raises no objection to the development, subject to a number of detailed conditions.

150. The proposals are therefore considered to be in accordance with Saved Policy 25.NC of the adopted Local Plan and Policy DM9 of the Pre- Submission Consultation Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2011-2029).

151. The application would not require Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Species and Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended).

Affordable Housing

152. Saved Policy 74.H of the adopted Local Plan sets a target of 35% affordable housing provision on site. This target is carried forward in Policy DM28 of the Pre-Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2011-2029), which also states that the Council will seek a mixture of tenures and will take into account the financial viability of the proposal and the contribution that the proposal would make towards mixed, balanced and sustainable communities.

153. The application is supported by a Viability Assessment which proposes a financial contribution towards affordable housing, in lieu of on-site affordable housing provision. On this occasion this has the support of the Head of Housing, provided it can be used on any site within the Borough.

Site Viability and Planning obligation considerations

154. In accordance with the guidance contained within Saved Policies 147.OS and 191.IN, of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001- 2011), the Council’s ‘Planning Obligations’ SPD and the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations, there is a requirement for developers’ contributions to ensure on and off-site provision for facilities and infrastructure made necessary by the development or to mitigate against any increased need/pressure on existing facilities. This is in addition to provision for affordable housing.

155. The applicants have advised that there is a viability issue affecting the site as a result of development finance costs and abnormal site costs including demolition, piling, contaminated land, and sustainable transport costs and site management.

156. The Council’s Property Services Manager has advised on the acceptable level of contributions following a thorough open book assessment and the commissioning of the District Valuer and the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) to assist. The outcome of this lengthy exercise is that developers’ contributions (to be index-linked from this Committee date) totalling £990,000 can be secured which give the development a financial basis upon which the development can proceed and can also be made acceptable in planning terms. This scenario is one which is strongly advocated by the NPPF which wishes Local Planning Authorities to take a proactive and realistic approach to unlocking unviable urban sites in order to assist in delivering sustainable development and more homes.

157. A summary of the viability assessment is available to ensure that the negotiations and considerations have the necessary transparency.

158. Giving priority to the need to deliver affordable housing, sustainable development and transport options and improved community facilities, it is recommended that contributions are taken towards:

• Off-site affordable housing in Eastleigh Borough • Off-site sustainable transport works (to include a pedestrian/cycle link to Hedge End town centre) • Off-site public open space works in Hedge End • Community infrastructure provision in Hedge End • Eastleigh Town Centre mitigation (environmental Improvements) • The Eastleigh Business Improvement District project • Carbon Fund projects within Eastleigh Borough • Travel Plan monitoring • A Road Traffic Order in Turnpike Way

159. Because of site viability matters, it is not recommended that public art contributions or mitigation measures for other town/city centres are a priority.

160. Provision will also be made for the following measures via the S106 agreement:

• Next Plc to operate a store of at least the same size as existing within Eastleigh Town Centre for a minimum period of 7 years from the grant of permission. • Next Plc to use best endeavours to move to larger retail unit in Eastleigh Town Centre. • Next Plc to be first occupier of proposed retail building. • Highway works to Turnpike Way to provide traffic calming and safer crossing point. • The provision and adoption of a widened/upgraded and lit footway/cycleway as proposed in the application. • The grant of permissive use by cyclists of part of the private road adjacent the footpath. • Implementation of an Employment and Skills Management Plan • Implementation of a Travel Plan

161. The projects and measures identified above are considered to comply with the 3 tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy 2010, in that the monies will go towards projects which are necessary, are directly related to the development, and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development. The contributions will be index-linked to ensure the contributions rise in line with the costs of providing the identified projects/measures. The obligations sought are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and to meet the needs

generated by the new residents, staff and customers and the potential impact on existing services and facilities.

162. Section 143 of the Localism Act amends Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act to make local financial considerations an explicit consideration in the determination of planning applications. Financial considerations also include the New Homes Bonus and the proposed housing development would generate NHB in addition to the significant number of jobs and multi million pound investment into the area.

Conclusion

163. The proposals are considered to be acceptable in principle and in relation to design and highway matters.

164. However, there remain strong concerns regarding the impact of the scheme on Eastleigh town centre and other centres in south Hampshire, with the sale of clothing goods and smaller home goods from this store and others in the future resulting in the risk that vitality and viability and town centre investment would be undermined. Using the statutory tests, the applicants have provided robust evidence and mitigation measures to demonstrate that no significant adverse impact would result, and their sequential test shows that there is not the opportunity to locate within or on the edge of Eastleigh town centre.

165. Despite this evidence, the precedent and cumulative impact arguments put forward by the Planning Policy and Design Manager lead to the conclusion that the proposals are considered to conflict with Policy 134.TC (iii) of the EBLPR and Policy TC3 of the SEP.

166. Notwithstanding this, the decision for this application must be based on the entirely unique nature of the site the proposals and their ability to provide economic and social benefits and mitigation amongst other relevant planning considerations.

167. In line with the Government’s stance on sustainable development the positive benefits of the scheme include:

• Provision of a range of jobs at a time when others in the local retail sector have been lost • Although the present retail unit on the site is now in use, much of the application site remains empty, unused and derelict. The development proposed would put the site to a positive and beneficial use. • Improved sustainable development compared with the extant permissions • Delivery of a range of good quality housing within the next 5 years which would assist in reducing the Borough’s shortfall. • Provision for further off-site affordable housing.

• The absence of local objection following community consultation and the advice thereon within the NPPF. • The proposals include improvements to the local footpath and cycle-route network. • Town centre impact mitigation including the retention of the existing Eastleigh Next store • Conditions have been agreed which restrict the range of goods which could be sold, the retailing floorspace and potential for future subdivision of the retail store.

168. Negatives, which can in part be addressed by mitigation, relate to:

• The potential impacts on town centres, including Eastleigh, and the potential cumulative impacts which may follow. • Traffic impacts at weekends may also slightly worsen. • The development does not provide fully for all planning obligations due to legitimate site viability issues.

169. In balancing these material considerations and the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development, the recommendation is to grant permission subject to the conditions and Section 106 agreement terms detailed in this report. The two-year permission would assist in meeting current housing supply and job creation needs as well as which are material to the consideration.

170. Because of the size and location of the retail development the proposals have been assessed as to whether they must be referred to the National Planning Casework Unit under the Government’s call-in procedures (The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009). Size and location alone do not trigger a referral and the development must also be considered to be contrary to one or more of the provisions of the development plan in force. As detailed above, the proposals are considered to conflict with the development plan and it is therefore considered that a referral is necessary should there be a resolution to grant permission.

Gas Gov

5 P UD BR OO KE GD

NS 6

1 0

2 1

D A O R S R E

LB L 8 W O F

Gas

Gov

El Sub Sta 1 D O W T D 7 UR S NP IK C E W L A O Y S

1 2

Tank

5 Y A W S T T A W S E L

R Superstore A 9 H

C 8

10 NS DE 0 AR 1 D G OO YW RR BE

14 6

FB 5 4 1

1 5

DOWNSCROFT 2

GARDENS

2 7

5 3 9

r 8 D 28 3

a 4 t 6 S b

S 3 FB l 2

5 4

26 27

e 2

g 2 1 d 4 ri tb o

3 2 4 DO 5 WN SC RO

4 4

2 0 G

1 A

R 2

5 D

1 E 8 N

9 6

3 3

8 76

6 3

3 6 in a r

D 7

8 5

Y 2 A 3 W S

TT 9 A 5 W 2 S 1

LE 3 R 5 A Superstore H

0 6

Superstore

1 1

G U L 2 L 7 Y C

R 4 1 O F T M E A D 32

P ath (u m)

El Sub Sta

El Sub Sta 6 34

L T 5

6 1

Wildern t

( Mill u m

) Wilde r n AY W KE PI RN Mill TU

Goodall's

Meadow

FB Hopper

G Pond O O D A L L S L A N E

Pavilion Pond

Play Area

Wildern Farmhouse

Recreation Ground

0 5 GO ODL AND 64 S V 45 ALE Y A W E FB IK P N 68 R U T TH IS TL E R OA D 5

7 4 1

41 9

71 Title: Scale: 1:2500 Map Ref: SU4813SE Date: 01/02/2013

48 Agenda Item 6

18/02/2013

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR DECISION

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY Monday 18 February 2013 Case Officer Louise Cutts

SITE: Land to North and East of Boorley Green, Winchester Road, Botley, Southampton, Hampshire, SO32 2UA

Ref. O/12/71514 Received: 27/09/2012 (11/01/2013)

APPLICANT: M A Botley, Southern & Regional Developments and Macdonald Botley Park Ltd.

PROPOSAL: Outline application with all matters reserved (except for access) for the demolition of golf driving range shelter and groundsman's equipment store and the development of 1400 homes with access from Winchester Road and Maddoxford Lane (with upgrades to the Winchester Road/Woodhouse Lane Junction and approaches and Maypole Roundabout, construction of Sunday's Hill Bypass and approaches, extension to existing hotel (including new conference and leisure facilities, 44 no. new bedrooms and car parking), creation of new local centre (incorporating energy centre, pub, assisted living accommodation, retail and employment floorspace, including change of use of Braxells Farm House to employment), primary school, multi purpose community building, sports and open space facilities including play areas, allotments and Multi-Use Games Area, and changing facilities, together with construction of roads, footpaths (including diversion of Footpath No. 2) and cycle ways, and pumping stations. This application is the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment and a departure from the development plan. (Amended description following amended plans received 11/12/2012)

AMENDMENTS: Various

RECOMMENDATION:

Subject to 1) The referral of the planning application to the National Planning Casework Unit in accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009; 2) The resolution of the outstanding nature conservation issues; and 3) The completion of a Section 106 agreement as set out in the report

GRANT OUTLINE PERMISSION

CONDITIONS AND REASONS:

(1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

00523_BG_MP_01 Rev P2 - Illustrative Masterplan, HP11069/0001a - New Tree Planting Plan, LV.7-6 - Bridge Across Valley Plan, LV.7-7 - Bridge Across Valley Section,

Parameter Plans: 00523_BG_PP_02 Rev P4 - Parameter Plan: Land Use Plan, 00523_BG_PP_03 Rev P2 - Parameter Plan: Residential Density Plan, 00523_BG_PP_04 Rev P2 - Parameter Plan: Storey Heights Plan, 00523_BG_PP_05 Rev P2 - Parameter Plan: Access & Movement Plan, LV.8-8 - Parameter Plan: Open Space Provision

Location Plans: ITB7205-SK-007 - Boorley Green Application Boundary Covering North East Boorley Green Site, ITB7205-SK-008 Rev A - Boorley Green Application Boundary Winchester Street and Woodhouse Lane, ITB7205-SK-008 - Boorley Green Application Boundary Maypole Roundabout, ITB7205-SK-010 - Boorley Green Application Boundary Pylands Lane (Sunday’s Hill By-pass) Site,

Highways Plans: ITB7205-GA-201 Rev E - B3354 Winchester Road Site Access Proposals Proposed Roundabout Junction, ITB7205-GA-202 Rev E - Maddoxford Lane Secondary Site Access Proposed Change of Priority, ITB7205-GA-203 Rev C - Maddoxford Lane Proposed Pedestrian/Cycle Access, ITB7205-GA-206 Rev E - B3354 Winchester Road Pedestrian/Cyclist Enhancements, ITB7205-GA-207 Rev D - B3354 Winchester Road Pedestrian/Cyclist Enhancements, ITB7205-GA-209 Rev A - Winchester Road/Woodhouse Lane Changed Priority, ITB7205-GA-210 Rev C - Maypole Roundabout Proposed Improvements, ITB7205-GA-214 - B3354 Winchester Street Visual Road Narrowing Traffic Calming Features,

ITB7205-GA-215 Rev A - Maypole Roundabout Proposed Stopping Sight Distances, ITB7205-GA-118 - Proposed Footway/Cycleway Along East Side of Heathhouse Lane,

Sunday’s Hill Bypass: ITB7205-GA-115 Rev A - Proposed Sunday’s Hill Bypass General Arrangement (30mph Design Speed), ITB7205-GA-116 Rev A - Proposed Sunday’s Hill Bypass/Dodwell Lane/Pylands Lane 4 Arm 38m ICD Roundabout, ITB 7205-GA-117 Rev A - Proposed Sunday’s Hill Bypass/Heathhouse Lane Simple Priority Junction, 4137.001 - Sunday’s Hill Bypass General Arrangement 4137.002 - Sunday’s Hill Bypass Vertical Profile 4137.003 - 4137.004 - 4137.005 - Sunday’s Hill Bypass Layout & Profile 4137.006 - 4137.007 - Sunday’s Hill Bypass Cross Sections 4137.008 - Sunday’s Hill Bypass Typical Road Construction Details 4137.020 - Sunday’s Hill Bypass Concrete Bridge General Arrangement 4137.021 - Sunday’s Hill Bypass Wingwalls and Reinforced Earthworks General Arrangement

And the list of reports attached to this decision.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

(2) The permission hereby granted is an outline permission and an application for the approval of the Local Planning Authority to the following matters (for at least the first phase of development) must be made not later than the expiration of 1 year beginning with the date of this permission:

i. Layout ii. Scale iii Appearance iv. Landscaping REASON: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail, encourage delivery and comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

(3) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 1 year from the date of the approval of the first Reserved Matters Application. REASON: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail, encourage delivery and comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

(4) Plans and particulars showing the detailed proposals for all the following aspects of the development (the reserved matters) must be submitted to

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in respect of each phase of development before that phase of the development is commenced.

i) appearance ii) landscaping iii layout iv)scale

The development must then accord with these approved details. Reason: In order that these matters may be considered by the Local Planning Authority.

(5) Prior to the approval of the first reserved matters application, a detailed design code for the development shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The detailed design code shall demonstrate how the objectives of the Design and Access Statement will be met, and shall take account of the drawings referred to in Condition 1 above. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved design code unless otherwise agreed, in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The design code shall include the following :

a) principles for determining quality, colour and texture of external materials and facing finishes for roofing and walls of buildings and structures including opportunities for using locally sourced, low embodied carbon and recycled construction materials; b) sustainable design and construction, in order to achieve a BREEAM Communities 'excellent' standard for the whole development; a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 for residential buildings permitted in 2014, Code Level 5 for residential buildings permitted from January 2016 and Code Level 6/zero carbon from January 2020 (or other such relevant equivalent sustainability standard as agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) for residential buildings and an ‘Excellent’ (BREEAM) New Construction rating for non residential buildings, maximising passive solar gains, natural ventilation, water efficiency measures and the potential for home composting and food production c) measures which show how energy efficiency is being addressed to reflect policy and climate change, and show the on-site measures to be taken to produce at least 15% of the total energy requirements of the development hereby permitted by means of renewable energy sources; d) built form strategies to include density and massing, street grain and permeability, street enclosure and active frontages and relationships between buildings; e) principles for hard and soft landscaping including the inclusion of existing important trees and hedgerows f) structures including street lighting, floodlighting and boundary treatments for commercial, community, educational and residential premises; street furniture and play equipment

g) design of the public realm, including layout and design of squares, areas of public open space, areas for play and allotments. h) Open space needs including sustainable drainage i) Conservation of ecological interests j) A strategy for the hierarchy of streets and spaces k) Alignment, width of and surface materials including quality, colour and texture proposed for all footways, cycleways, bridleways, roads and vehicular accesses to and within the site and individual properties l) On and off-street residential and commercial vehicle parking and loading areas m) Cycle parking and storage n) Waste and recycling bin storage and collection o) Means to discourage casual parking and encourage parking only in designated areas p) Integration of strategic utility requirements, landscape and street tree planting and highway design and planting of parking areas q) refuse requirements.

Reason: To ensure a comprehensive approach to high quality design across the site.

(6) The development, including the phasing, must accord with the approved Design and Access Statement, parameter plans and Design Code approved in response to Condition 5 above. Reason: To ensure high quality development

(7) The development must accord with the mitigation strategies detailed within the ecological reports submitted with the application as listed in Condition 1. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.

(8) An ecological protection and mitigation plan must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority with the reserved matters application relating to each phase of the development to include the following matters in relation to that phase: i. measures to protect water quality and prevent surface water run-off from the construction site into the Ford Lake stream and its tributaries, the designated Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation (SINCs) and the 15 metre buffer zone as indicated on the parameter plans hereby approved. ii. measures to avoid and mitigate impacts on the European designated sites identified in the Habitats Regulations Assessment carried out by the Local Planning Authority in response to this application. iii. Measures to mitigate and compensate for impact upon bats inlcuding but not limited to those listed in the bat surveys and Ecological Impact Assessment accompanying the application. iv. Measures to prevent harm to badgers and their setts during development v. Measures to prevent disturbance to kingfishers and barn owls during development as set out in Section 4.2.1 of the breeding bird survey report and sections 5.3-5.4 of the Breeding Barn Owl report as listed in Condition 1 above.

vi. Measures to be carried out to mitigate impacts on other species and to enhance the SINC sites and other natural areas for biodiversity, including but not limited to those set out in Chapter 8 of the Environmental Statement accompanying the application, to be carried out by the developer during construction vii. Measures to enhance nesting opportunities for birds which breed in association with human habitation including but not limited to those set out in the Breeding Bird Survey Report as listed in Condition 1 above. viii. An implementation programme. The development must then be implemented in accordance with the approved measures. Reason: To protect nature conservation interests.

(9) Plans and particulars showing the proposals for all the following aspects for each phase of development in accordance with the Design Code approved pursuant to Condition 5 above must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before that phase of the development is commenced. The development must then accord with these approved details for that phase. Reason: In order that these matters may be considered by the Local Planning Authority.

a: The provision to be made for street lighting and/or external lighting. b: Details of rainwater goods. c: Details and location of meter boxes. d: Colour and materials for fascias and soffits. e: Balcony details. f: Details of chimneys. g: Proposed ground levels and relationship to existing levels both within the site and on immediately adjoining land. h: The alignment, height, design and materails of all walls, fences and other means of enclosure. i: The ground floor levels above ordnance datum of all buildings. j: The provision of street trees. l: any green roofs. k: Window details and designs. m: The provision to be made for the storage of refuse.

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

(11) Before development of each phase commences, details of all crime prevention measures must be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No phase of the development shall be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details. Reason. In the interest of crime prevention.

(12) Before each phase of development commences, a construction management plan and communication strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan must consider the phasing of the works with a specific reference to the first school occupation period, the location of temporary site buildings and plant and material storage areas, the arrangement for construction deliveries, dust, piling, vibration, noise, construction traffic movements, lorry routeing and temporary construction car parking both on and off-site, temporary lighting, mud on the road, and site security and the protection of pedestrian routes during construction. The construction must then be carried out in accordance with the agreed plan. Reason: In the interests of amenity.

(13) The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The CEMP shall inlcude a programme for implementation and shall be implemented as approved. Reason:The site lies above the Lambeth Beds and there are several surface water courses that drain to the River Hamble. The quality of surface water runoff from the site needs to be carefully considered during the construction phases of the development so that water pollution does not occur. The CEMP should contain all relevant risk assessments, pollution prevention and mitigation measures to prevent pollution.

(14) Prior to the commencement of each phase of development (or in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), a BREEAM or Code for Sustainable Homes interim stage certificate and report highlighting how all of the essential requirements of the Eastleigh Borough Council adopted Supplementary Planning Document Environmentally Sustainable Development are to be met for all elements in that phase of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development meets the requirements of the adopted Supplementary Planning Document Environmentally Sustainable Development.

(15) Prior to the occupation of each type of building within each phase of the development hereby approved, a BREEAM or Code for Sustainable Homes final stage certificate and report highlighting how all of the essential requirements of the Eastleigh Borough Council adopted Supplementary Planning Document Environmentally Sustainable Development have been met for that type of building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development meets the requirements of the adopted Supplementary Planning Document Environmentally Sustainable Development

(16) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a BREEAM Communities final certificate at Excellent level shall be

submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To demonstrate required compliance with BREEAM Communities.

(17) Before two years from the final occupation of each phase, a post occupancy evaluation report detailing compliance with BREEAM Communties Excellent must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the parameters of which must be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to submission. Reason: To ensure compliance to the required BREEAM Communities standard.

(18) Before each phase of development is commenced a noise and vibration assessment shall be carried out to assess the impact of construction noise on noise sensitive development,in respect of that phase and a report of its findings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include a programme for implementation and identify a scheme of any mitigation measures that are considered necessary for protecting noise sensitive uses from noise and vibration The assessment should have due regard to the advice and guidance contained in British Standard BS5228:2009 Pts 1 and 2. Each phase of the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect noise sensitive development from unacceptable levels of noise.

(19) Before each phase of development is commenced a noise assessment of the existing roads and existing and proposed commercial and leisure uses permitted in respect of that phase shall be carried out and a report of its findings submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority (the report shall include a scheme of layout, design and a programme for implementation and identify any mitigation measures which are considered necessary to protect the proposed development from noise. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied / brought into use until verification that the approved scheme required has been fully implemented (unless varied with the written permission of the lpa in advance of implementation) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority Reason: To protect amenity.

(20)No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including the 100 year critical storm, including an allowance for climate change, will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Those details shall include: 1. information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters;

2. a timetable for its implementation; and 3. a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable urban drainage scheme throughout its lifetime. Reason:To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance

(21) Detailed proposals for the disposal of foul and surface water shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the development hereby permitted. The approved details shall be fully implemented before the buildings hereby approved are occupied. Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision of foul and surface water drainage.

(22) The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a scheme relating to 1. disposal of foul and surface water (drainage) 2 installation of pollution prevention devices for the surface water drainage scheme. has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall include a programme for implementation and be implemented as approved. Reason:The site lies above the Lambeth Beds and there are several surface water courses that drain to the River Hamble. The quality of surface water runoff from the site needs to be carefully considered so that water pollution does not occur.

(23) No burning of materials shall take place on this site during the demolition, construction or fitting out process. Reason: In the interests of amenity and to protect trees..

(24) No development shall commence on each phase until details of protective fencing within that phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Work must not commence on each phase until the Local Planning Authority officer has inspected and approved the protective tree fencing.. Once approved no access by vehicles or placement of chemicals, fuels, soil or other materials shall take place within the fenced area. The fencing shall be retained in its approved form for the duration of the construction period of that phase. Reason: To retain and protect the existing trees which form an important part of the amenity of the locality.

(25) Prior to the commencement of each phase of the approved works, details of paving and construction within the root zones of retained trees to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars in respect of that phase must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local

Planning Authority. These details shall be in accordance with the British Standards Institute Code of Practice, BS 5837 : trees in relation to construction. The development of each phase must not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To conserve the trees adjacent to and within the proposed development.

(26) Before development commence, details for the modification of all electricity distributions apparatus, including a programme for implementation, must be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of proper planning.

(27) Each phase of development shall not begin until a scheme of work detailing the extent and type of piling proposed within that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority. Each phase of development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect the amenity of occupiers of adjoining residential properties

(28) Before development commences a programme of archaeological evaluation must be undertaken in accordance with a written specification that has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Reason: To investigate archaeological potential and protect archaeology.

(29) Before development commences a programme for the implementation of archaeological mitigation of impact in accordance with an approved written specification must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development must not be carried out otherwise in accordance with the approved mitigation. Reason: To protect archaeology

(30) Construction of each phase of the development shall not commence until details of the proposed water infrastructure plans in respect of that phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development of each phase must then accord with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure adequate drainage of the site.

(31) Details of the installation of plant and equipment which gives rise, or is likely to give rise, to emissions to air of either ash, dust, fume, gases, grit, odours or soot shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.Such details must identify any necessary mitigation and the development must then be carried out in accordance with the approved mitigation. Reason: In the interests of amenity.

(32) No work shall commence on site until the following has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

i. A Desk Study documenting all the previous and existing land uses of the site in accordance with national guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Reports Nos. 1 and 2, and BS10175:2001 Investigation of

potentially contaminated sites Code of Practice and unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority: ii. A site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the desk study in accordance with BS10175:2001, and, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority; iii. A detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid the risk from contaminants and/or gases when the site is developed and proposals for future maintenance and monitoring. Such a scheme shall include nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works and development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schemes. Reason: to minimise the risks of pollution and to ensure the site is satisfactorily de-contaminated.

(33) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of Condition 32iii that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of Condition 28iii has been implemented in full in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written permission of the Local Planning Authority in advance of implementation). Unless agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority such verification shall comprise: i. Built drawings of the implemented scheme; ii. Photographs of the remediation works in progress; iii. Certificates demonstrating that imported and /or material left in situ is free from contamination. Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme under Condition 28 iii. Reason: to minimise the risks of pollution and to ensure the site is satisfactorily de-contaminated.

(34) Before each phase of the development commences, details of communal infrastructure for the provision of communications technology within that phase must be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. The infrastructure must then be provided for use upon first occupation of the buildings hereby permitted within that phase and retained thereafter. Reason: To reduce the proliferation of individual masts, aerials, satellite dishes and wiring on flatted and commercial blocks in the interests of visual amenity.

(35) Prior to the commencement of development of each phase, full details of the provisions to be made for access within and use of the development within that phase by people with disabilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a programme for implementation and the development of each phase must then accord with these approved details. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for people with disabilities.

(36) A detailed Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement in accordance with BS5837 shall be submitted for each phase of the development as part of each reserved matters application, as recommended in paragraph 1.3.3 of the Preliminary Arboricultural Impact Appraisal Report by Barrell Tree Consultancy dated September 2012. Each phase of the development shall then accord with the details of protective fencing ground protection and other measures set out in each detailed assessment. Reason: To protect trees.

(37) During the construction of each phase of development no storage of building materials or parking of vehicles shall take place underneath the crown spread of the tree(s) to be retained in respect of that phase. Reason: To protect the health of the trees to be retained on the site.

(38) No trenches for services or drains shall be sited within the crown spread of any trees that are to be retained on site. Reason: To protect the health and stability of the trees to be retained on site.

(39) Details of the use of any sound amplification equipment to be used in the non-residential uses hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties.

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

(41) Before development to which the cycle/footpath between 1 and 3 Maddoxford Lane relates, commences, a detailed specification including maintenance responsibility and agreed boundary treatment shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The cycleway/footpath shall not be constructed otherwise in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect residential amenity.

(42) The community buildings hereby permitted shall not be open for use outside of the following times without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority: 0700-2200 Monday to Thursday and on Bank Holidays, and 0700-2300 on Fridays and Saturdays. Reason: To protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

(43) Any plant or equipment used for the purpose of air conditioning, process exhausts , shall be provided and maintained with suitable acoustic attenuation, or sited at agreed locations, to mitigate the effects of noise as approved in writing by the local planning authority.Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings

(44) Any plant or equipment used for the purpose of supplying or generating or transferring compressed air or electricity, or used in connection with the heating, ventilation, air conditioning, chilling and freezing systems

shall be situated either within the main building structures, purpose designed enclosures or otherwise at suitable locations to mitigate the effects of noise as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings

(45) An agreed scheme of delivery hours for each of the non residential uses hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing before each non residential use commences. The development must then comply with the agreed scheme. Reason: In the interests of amenity

(46) For the new non-residential uses hereby approved where food is prepared, the equipment installed must include an odour neutraliser plant, which must, as long as the use continues, be operated in such a manner as will effectively suppress the emission of fumes or smell. Details of the equipment must be submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority and the equipment must be installed and in full working order to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the use.Reason: To protect the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties

(47) Details of the type of construction proposed for the roads and footways within each phase of development including all relevant horizontal cross sections and longitudinal sections showing the existing and proposed levels together with details of street lighting and the method of disposing of surface water and details of the programme of implementation for the making up of the roads and footways must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before development of that phase commences. Each phase of the development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the roads are constructed to a standard which will enable them to be taken over as publicly maintainable highways.

(48) The roads and footways must be laid out and made up in accordance with the specification, programme and details approved and in any event shall be so constructed that, by no later than the time any building erected on the land is occupied, there shall be a direct connection from it to an existing highway. The final carriageway and footway surfacing must be commenced within three months and completed within six months from the date upon which the erection is commenced of the penultimate dwelling or building within the phase for which permission is hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure that the roads are constructed to a standard which will enable them to be taken over as publicly maintainable highways.

(49) Construction of the Sundays Hill Bypass shall not begin until a noise, vibration and dust assessment has been carried out (to include piling), and a report of its findings submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority (the report shall include a scheme of mitigation measures for protecting the existing and proposed dwellings from noise, vibration and dust as deemed necessary by the LPA). The assessment

should have due regard to the advice and guidance contained in British Standard BS5228:2009 Noise And Vibration Control On Construction And Open Sites. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity

(50) Construction of the Sundays Hill Bypass shall not begin until the following has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: i. Desk Study documenting all the previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Reports Nos. 1 and 2, and BS10175:2011 Investigation of potentially contaminated sites Code of Practice, and, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority; ii. A site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the desk study in accordance with BS10175: 2011, and, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority; iii. A detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid the risk from contaminants and/or gases when the site is developed and proposals for future maintenance a and monitoring. Such a scheme shall include nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works. Reason: To prevent the spread of contaminants

(51) Before occupation of the 350th dwelling, a verification report must be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority verifying that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of the above condition has been implemented fully in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written permission of the Local Planning Authority in advance of implementation). Unless agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority such verification shall comprise:

i built drawings of the implemented scheme, ii photographs of the remediation works in progress, iii certificates demonstrating that imported and / or material left in situ is free from contamination.

Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the scheme approved under the above condition. Reason: To verify remediation scheme.

(52) Construction of the Sundays Hill Bypass must not commence until a noise assessment of the new road has been carried out and a report of its findings submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority (the report shall include a scheme of mitigation measures for protecting the existing dwellings from noise as deemed necessary by the Local Planning Authority. The bypass shall not be brought into use until verification that the approved scheme required has been fully implemented (unless varied with the written permission of the lpa in

advance of implementation) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To protect amenity.

(53) For the Sundays Hill Bypass site, all fixed plant, to be used in the construction/demolition phases of development, shall be screened and/or acoustically enclosed, when in operation, in accordance with a scheme to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, so as to reduce any impact upon neighbours. Only materials originating on site shall be processed by such approved plant.Reason: In the interests of residential amenity

(54) For the Sundays Hill Bypass site, a suitable Reptile Translocation and Mitigation Strategy incorporating but not limited to those appropriate measure included in the Reptile Survey report for the development site and the Reptile survey of receptor sites within Manor Farm Country Park (or suitable alternative site as agreed with the Local Planning Authority) shall be submitted before construction of the Sundays Hill Bypass commences and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.Reptile translocation shall then proceed in accordance with the approved strategy. Reason: To prevent harm to protected species of reptiles.

(55) For the Sundays Hill Bypass site, the works hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations and mitigation set out in the Bat Activity Survey (updated February 2013) Appendix F by WYG Environment. Reason: In the interest of protecting bats.

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 although contrary to the development plan, there is no current adopted local Plan which allocates housing to address the current 5 year housing land supply deficit. Following the guidance of the NPPF as a material consideration, an assessment has been carried out as to whether the proposals constitute sustainable development for which the benefits outweigh the adverse effects. It is considered that the proposal is sustainable in terms of its economic, social and environmental elements and the benefits outweigh the adverse effects. The development constitutes sustainable mixed use development of housing, employment, educational and community facilities which will have an acceptable impact in terms of its principle and access. The development is therefore in accordance with the guidance contained within the NPPF and the saved non-housing allocation policies of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (56)), 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 adopted development plan policies are relevant to this decision and the conditions attached to it:

The South East Plan (the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England), May 2009: CC1,CC2, CC3,CC4,CC5,CC6,CC7,CC8,H1,H2,H3,H4,H5, T1,T2, T4, T5,T6,T14,NRM2,NRM4,NRM5,NRM7, NRM9,NRM10,NRM11,NRM12,W1,W2, C6, BE6, TSR5,S1,S2,S3,S5, S6,SH1,SH2,SH3,SH5,SH6.

Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011, saved Policies. 1.CO, 11.CO, 15.CO, 17.CO, 18.CO,19.CO, 22.NC, 23.NC, 25.NC, 26.NC, 28.ES, 30.ES, 31.ES, 32.ES, 33.ES, 34.ES, 35.ES, 36.ES, 37.ES, 38.ES, 39.ES, 41.ES, 42.ES, 43.ES, 44.ES, 45.ES, 59.BE, 62.BE, 63.BE, 64.BE, 66.BE, 68.BE, 71.H, 72.H, 73.H , 74.H, 89.T, 100.T, 101.T, 102.T, 103.T, 104.T, 108.T, 145.OS, 147.OS, 152.OS, 153.OS, 160.TA, 165.TA, 168.LB, 190.IN, 191.IN

The following emerging development plan policies are also relevant. Pre submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029. S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, DM1, DM2, DM3, DM4, DM6, DM7, DM8, DM9, DM11, DM13, DM15, DM19, DM23, DM24, DM25, DM28, DM29, DM31, DM32, DM33, DM35, DM37, BO1, BO3, BU3, BU4 Draft Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan Policy 15

Under the Town and Country Planning (58) (England) Regulations 2012, a fee is required for Discharge of Condition Applications. N.B. Conditions not fully discharged, invalidate the planning permission.

NOTE TO APPLICANT: The applicant/developer should enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure required to service this development.

NOTE TO APPLICANT: A formal application for connection to the water supply is required in order to service this development.

NOTE TO APPLICANT: This permission is also subject to a legal agreement.

NOTE TO APPLICANT: With regards to the pipeline infrastructure the applicant's attention is drawn to Esso Petroleum Special Requirements for Safe Working booklet.

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

This application has been referred to Committee because the application is a significant and controversial major development.

The site and its surroundings

1. Due to the traffic impact of the application, the application consists of three separate sites:

• Boorley Green main development site (1400 houses and other facilities) • Maypole Roundabout (an enlargement and improvement scheme) • Sundays Hill Bypass (a new road bypassing the Heath House Lane/ Bursledon Road junction to enable more direct access to Junction 8 of the M27 taking pressure off Junction 7).

Boorley Green Main Development Site

2. The site, within the parish of Botley, lies to the east of the Borough and extends to approximately 81 hectares. It comprises a large, irregularly shaped plot of land bounded to the west by the B3354 Winchester Road and to the south by Maddoxford Lane. The northern and eastern boundaries are demarcated by the meandering course of Ford Lake which is a tributary to the River Hamble and a Site of Interest for Nature Conservation (SINC) characterised by mature woodland. Beyond Ford Lake lies Chancellors Lane.

3. To the south and west, the rear of a number of residential properties bound the site along Maddoxford Lane and Winchester Road, many of which currently enjoy an open outlook.

4. The majority of the site (59.9ha) is occupied by the Botley Park golf course which is attached to the Botley Park Hotel and Country Club (4ha). This is a four-star hotel comprising a modern building complex with conference and leisure facilities, associated car parking and landscaping. The site also includes Braxells Farm (1.8ha) and associated buildings along the western boundary whilst the south- eastern section of the site comprises a series of pasture fields associated with Maddoxford Farm (9.7ha). The landscape is naturally undulating although the golf course has been extensively remodelled in places, including the formation of two man made lakes. Remnants of the site’s former agricultural use are also apparent in places in the form of retained mature trees and hedgerows. Near the centre of the site lies another SINC – Botley Park Wood which is a 1 ha area of ancient woodland.

5. The site lies immediately to the north of the small settlement of Boorley Green, approximately 1.7km to the north of the historic village of Botley, whilst the large town of Hedge End is centred 2.5km to the site’s south-west, extending to within 500m of the site boundary. To the north of the site, within the jurisdiction of Winchester City Council, lies the parish of Durley with a village of the same name located 2km to the north-east.

6. The mainline railway running between Winchester and Gosport lies 550m to the south of the site with Hedge End station lying approximately 0.7km to the west of the site. Junction 7 of the M27 motorway is situated 3km to the west-south-west with Junction 8 approximately 4 km to the south-west. The B3354 provides links to Horton Heath and Fair Oak to the north and Botley to the south whilst the A334 provides a direct link to Hedge End to the west.

7. Nearby facilities include the Pear Tree public house and some small scale employment. More extensive facilities such as wider employment, shopping, restaurant, leisure, entertainment, church, library, theatre, school and GP services are to be found in Botley village and Hedge End centres, all accessible by the existing hourly bus service along Winchester Road.

8. Within the site lay a public right of way, an overhead electricity line, underground oil and gas pipelines and a large Southern Water water main. As noted above the site is bounded by a Site of Interest for Nature Conservation and there are also a number of protected species on site.

Maypole Roundabout

9. This is a five arm roundabout situated on the eastern outskirts of Hedge End, serving the junctions of Woodhouse Lane, A334 Grange Road, Kings Copse Avenue, Lower Northam Road and A334 Broad Oak. It is bounded mostly by highway land retained by Hampshire County Council to enable further improvements if required.

Sundays Hill Bypass

10. The proposed bypass forms an element of a separate planning application for 250 houses at Pylands Lane (ref O/12/71522) but is also included within this planning application. The road therefore requires detailed consideration as part of this application. The reason for the inclusion of the road within this application is to not only address traffic impact from this site but also to address a Transport for South Hampshire (TSH) policy seeking a reduction of existing traffic pressure upon Junction 7 of the M27 and reallocation of a proportion of existing and new traffic to Junction 8 where capacity currently exists.

11. The alignment of the road begins on the southern edge of Hedge End at Heath House Lane where the road heads in a south-westerly direction downhill to the junction of Dodwell Lane and Pylands Lane. The site displays many constraints and the topography is very undulating. The centre of the site comprises a deep valley through which a small watercourse flows surrounded by a protected belt (SINC) of ancient woodland. The watercourse discharges into the River Hamble, an internationally recognised ecological site. The site

crosses an area of old waste landfill which sits in the eastern section of the site. Surveys have established a number of protected animal species, some of which would be affected by the line of the proposed bypass.

Description of application

12. The application is made in outline with all matters reserved for consideration except for access. Therefore the assessment as to whether or not planning permission should be granted should be based around the principle of development with detailed consideration given to access.

13. However following changes to the outline planning permission regime in 2006(Circular 1/2006 provides guidance on these changes), detailed consideration also needs to be given to the proposed uses, the amount of development with a basic level of information submitted in regard to the layout and the scale of development. To allow assessment six parameter plans and a design and access statement have been submitted for approval along with a number of other documents allowing consideration of the principle of development including an indicative layout.

14. Access considerations cover accessibility to and within the site for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians, in terms of positioning and treatment of circulation routes and how these fit into the surrounding access network. A full and detailed Transport Assessment (including addendums) has been submitted to allow full consideration of this matter.

15. Should this application be permitted, a number of ‘reserved matters’ applications would follow for each phase of development and detailed consideration of ‘scale’, ‘layout’, ‘landscaping’ and ‘appearance’ (the reserved matters) would be required at that point.

16. Reports/Assessments accompanying this application are listed below:

• Affordable Housing Statement (within Planning Statement) • Air Quality Assessment • Arboricultural Impact Assessment • Archaeological Desktop Assessment • Archaeological Management Plan • BREEAM Communities Statement • Community Facilities Audit (within Planning Statement) • Design and Access Statement • Draft Development Brief • Draft Section 106 Heads of Terms • Ecological Reports – (Habitats, Bats, Badgers, Dormice, Water Voles, Reptiles, Great Crested Newts, Winter Birds, Breeding Birds, Barn

Owls, Terrestrial Invertebrates, Botanical Survey, National Vegetation Classification) • Energy Statement • Environmental Statement (plus addendums) • Environmental Statement (non-technical summary) • Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Strategy • Foul Sewage and Utilities Assessment • Geotechnical Assessment • Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment • Noise Impact Assessment • Planning Statement • Public Art Strategy • Retail Statement (within planning statement) • Sports Provision Assessment (loss of golf course) • Statement of Community Involvement • Transport Assessment • Travel Plan

17. All of these reports, including the Environmental Statement and its addendums, have been taken into account when assessing the application.

18. The Environmental Statement and addendums in particular have been prepared to support the planning applications and identify, assess and report the likely significance of any environmental effects where the potential for significant effects has been identified in the EIA scoping opinion. The statement contains environmental information that has assisted in the consideration of the planning application.

Boorley Green Main Development Site

19. Although consideration is limited to the principle of development and access, the application is accompanied by an illustrative masterplan, a design and access statement and parameter plans to an ‘in principle’ consideration of land use and the amount, layout and scale of development. The 81 ha site is proposed to be used in the following way:

a) Approximately 40 hectares of the site would be used for 1400 new dwelling units. The dwellings are proposed as a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bed flats, 2,3,4 and 5 bed houses, some 2-bed bungalows all compliant with EBC’s proposed minimum space standards. The overall density would be 34.6 dwellings per hectare, although this would vary throughout the site depending on house type and layout. Affordable housing is also proposed.

b) Approximately 10 hectares of the site is proposed for other uses. These would include 4335 sq. m of employment floorspace including the retention of the existing Braxells Farm employment area, a 279 sqm convenience food store, a two form entry primary school, a 4000

sqm extension to the existing hotel consisting of 44 extra bedrooms, increased restaurant space, additional function/conference room facilities, a new 25 m swimming pool, gym and health suite including aerobics studio, a community pub/restaurant, a multipurpose community building, a nursery, a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA), and an energy centre.

c) Approximately 30 hectares of the site is proposed to be used for a mixture of formal and informal open space including a trim trail, footpath and bridleway, formal children’s play areas, three football pitches with changing facilities for 3 teams, referees and lounge area and 1.9 ha of allotments and community orchard.

20. The applicants Design and Access Statement incorporates a vision for the development as follows:

• A contextual development sitting in harmony with Boorley Green • Provision of green space between the existing and new development to be used as a shared resource by both. • Provision of two connected mixed use hubs, a leisure and employment hub focussed around the hotel and Braxells Farm, and a new community and recreation hub focussed around the new primary school • Structured around existing green infrastructure ie. Woodland, valley, lakes, trees and hedges • Defined by a series of green spaces, linear landscapes and small parks responding to topography. • Walkable neighbourhoods with access to a range of facilities. • Sustainable transport options ie. Bus, cycle, walk. • Energy reducing/ efficient design. • Highest quality urban and architectural design with strong sense of identity • A place that people want to live, work and relax in.

21. In terms of the access, which is the only reserved matter to be considered at this stage the site access arrangement is proposed as follows:

• the main access to the site would be from a roundabout from the B3354 Winchester Road situated to the north of the existing access to the Botley Park Hotel. • a secondary access to the site would be provided from Maddoxford Lane to the east of the Crows Nest Lane junction • an improved access to the Braxells Farm complex is also proposed from Winchester Road in the form of a priority junction to the south of the proposed roundabout (this will allow for the closure of an existing access to the farm complex and golf driving range). • the access to the hotel is proposed to be retained in its current location.

• a number of pedestrian and cycle access points are also proposed from Winchester Road and Maddoxford Lane along with a pedestrian and cycle route along Winchester Road/Maddoxford Lane connecting up with a footpath/cycleway along Ford Lake and other routes within the site to form part of a circular walking and cycling route.

22. In terms of a street hierarchy within the site, a network of streets is proposed allowing a high level of permeability at the local level whilst distinguishing between routes designed for main traffic movements and low order residential streets. For the main streets which would include a bus route, a design speed of 30 mph is proposed with a carriageway width of 6.75 m with 3m wide shared footpath/cycleways on either side. 2m corridors are also proposed on both sides of the street to allow for street trees to be planted along these routes. For the access roads to the residential streets a design speed of 15-20 mph is allowed for with a carriageway width of 5.5m, shared footpaths and cycleways, street trees and frontage access. For minor residential streets, the carriageway widths reduced further to encourage even slower speeds. This may also involve shared surface mews or courtyard squares. Inclusive access including dropped kerbs, tactile paving and clutter free streetscape is included within the design concept. The provision for refuse collection is also included within the design concept.

23. In terms of the surrounding access network, a full transport assessment has been submitted with the application which considers existing transport provision and the need for improvements as part of the development. The application includes a number of proposals to address the requirement for the development to be absorbed into the existing access network. These are:

24. Pedestrian and cycle – a contribution is proposed towards projects including the upgrade of the Rights of Way from the site to both Hedge End Station and Botley or on a range of other accessibility proposals.

25. Bus – a contribution is proposed to provide a twice hourly bus service through the site and to Hedge End Station and centre between 7am and 7pm to at least 5 years post final occupation. (This is in addition to the current commercial hourly bus service already in operation.)

26. Road - before any mitigation, the transport assessment shows that with between 830 and 880 peak time additional traffic movements, the Maypole Roundabout would operate over capacity, the Winchester Road/Shamblehurst Lane junction would approach capacity, Junction 8 of the M27 would approach capacity and the Windhover roundabout would approach capacity. On this basis the following has been agreed:

a. the construction of the Sundays Hill bypass b. improvements to the Maypole roundabout c. a contribution towards improved pedestrian crossing facilities at Kings Copse Avenue

d. a contribution toward a 30mph Traffic Regulation Order on Kings Copse Avenue/Heath House Lane e. an improvement scheme for the Woodhouse Lane/Winchester Road junction f. a contribution towards a junction improvement scheme at Winchester Street/Botley High Street g. a contribution towards the part time signalisation of the east and west slip roads to the M27 at Junction 8 and part time signalisation of the southbound side of Bert Betts Way towards the Windhover roundabout. h. a contribution towards potential traffic management schemes in Boorley Green subject to public consultation.

27. In order to implement an improvement scheme to the Maypole roundabout and collect contributions towards the completion of the Sundays Hill bypass, these two sites are required to be integral to this application. The description of the proposals can be found below:

Maypole Roundabout

28. Detailed drawings are provided for this aspect of the development as access is to be considered at this stage. It is proposed to increase the size of this roundabout to 60m to cater for increased traffic as a result of the development. An improved circulatory carriageway is proposed along with alterations to all five approach arms to improve capacity and sight lines. The alterations will also include provision for cycleway improvements and bus stop relocation. The land required for the enlargement is either highway land or within the control of the applicant. One small tree will be lost as part of the proposed enlargement on the corner of Kings Copse Avenue and A334 Broad Oak... The existing turning area for cars provided on the corner of Kings Copse Avenue and the slip road from Lower Northam Road will be retained with a small area for additional parking provided within the highway verge. The Maypole Nursing home frontage will remain largely unaffected as will the hedged frontage of No 2 Grange Road. Access to the commercial site on the corner of Woodhouse Lane/A334 Broad Oak (Shoreham/Hascom Network) will be relocated to the north. Better footway crossing points will also be provided.

Sundays Hill Bypass

29. Detailed drawings are also provided for this aspect of the development. It is proposed to form a priority junction at Heath House Lane located 5m south of the existing carriageway opposite 15-20 Thurmell Close. Due to the existing fall across the field, the junction would be 3.5m lower than Heath House Lane. The bypass would be aligned in a general south westerly direction over the valley to the point where Pylands Lane meets Dodwell Lane. The significant change in levels would require the road to be ‘cut in’ into the ground at the centre of the site to enable a 25m single span bridge to be constructed across the valley and stream. The bridge would be constructed using reinforced earth wingwalls and concrete facing

panels to the north and a 7.5m high reinforced slope to the south. The ‘arch’ beneath the bridge would measure 22 metres in width with a maximum 10 metres in height from the valley floor. At its end a four arm, 38m roundabout would be constructed to serve Pylands Lane, Dodwell Lane and the new road. This junction would be located slightly north of the existing junction. Pedestrian refuge islands are located on three arms and the existing bus layby to the west side of Dodwell Lane would be moved to a more southerly position. The private field access also on the west side would be retained. Gateway entrance and signage for Sundays Hill Bypass would be included to encourage use of the new road.

30. The bypass is of a strategic nature and is proposed in response to Transport for South Hampshire’s objectives to alleviate pressure from existing and proposed developments upon Junction 7 of the M27 motorway. As well as the more strategic function, part of the road is proposed to serve a local need associated with a separate planning application for housing at Pylands Lane. Five residential accesses are proposed along the route. As such the proposal is a multifunctional route and a lower design speed of 30 miles per hour is considered appropriate. The carriageway width is proposed at 7.3m with 1m verges and 3m footway/cycleways alongside. To allow sustainable access along the route, bus stops are proposed at intervals. Trees are also proposed where appropriate to create an avenue character where possible.

31. Due to the topography of the land this road would require some major engineering works including piling, a bridge as described above and an area of cutting up to 7.5m high in places. The impact is discussed in the assessment section of the report.

32. During construction a 35m working corridor would be required with most vegetation cleared. This would be replanted and the corridor would be reduced to 20m following completion of the route.

33. The bypass site extends northwards up Heath House Lane to its junction with Kings Copse Avenue. The developer has agreed to contributions towards a 30mph Traffic Regulation Order along this route and a controlled pedestrian crossing facility at the junction with Kings Copse Avenue.

Relevant planning history

34. Botley Park Hotel

• 1989 - Z/28803/002/00 - Country Club, Golf Course, Conference Centre and Access Road and Parking – Permit • 1989 - Z/28803/003/00 - Conference Centre, Ancillary Facilities including access road, parking and landscaping – Permit • 1989 - Z/28803/004/00 - Erection of a timber clad pump house- Permit • 1990 - A/28803/005/00 Display of illuminated and non-illuminated signs – Consent

• 1992 - Z/28803/008/00 - Floodlighting of existing tennis courts – Permit • 1992 - Z/28803/009/00 - Extensions and alternations to existing hotel – Permit 1992 - Z/28803/013/00 - Construction of golf professionals shop – Permit • 1992 - Z/28803/007/00 - New staff accommodation unit adjoining Braxells Farm – Refused • 1992 - Z/28803/010/00 - Construction of covered golf driving bays – Refused 1992 - Z/28803/011/00 - 6m high fence to golf practice range – Refused • 1992 - Z/28803/012/00 - Construction of golf professionals shop – Refused 1992 - Z/28803/014/00 - Construction of golf driving bays – Refused • 1993 - Z/28803/015/00 - Construction of professional golfers shop – Permit • 1998 - Z/28803/016/00 - Extensions to conference and leisure facilities – Permit • 1997 - Z/28803/017/00 - Extensions to existing lake within golf course by 0.2 hectares – permit • 2002 - Z/28803/018/00 - Three storey extension to provide 27 bedrooms and meeting room – Permit • 2005 - F/04/52551 - Conversion of approved linen stores within bedroom block extension permitted under planning permission 28803/018 to provide 3 No. additional bedrooms (total 30 No. bedrooms) – Permit • 2006 - F/06/56042 - Construction of timber pump house – Permit • 2008 - F/08/62030 - New landscape bund and re-grading of the eastern boundary of the driving range. Permit • 2010 - F/10/66935 - New landscaping bunds and re-grading works to hole 1 of golf course – Permit • 2010 - F/10/66934 - New landscaping bunds and re-grading works to holes 7 and 18 of golf course – Refused

35. Maddoxford Farm

• 1971 – WIR.7698A – Extraction of gravel from 16ha– Permit until 1974. • 1980 - Z/24129/000/00 - use of 2 hectares of land as site for 40 touring caravans – Refused • 1984 - Z/24129/001/00 - use of existing Old Barn site and cattle feeding yard for storage of caravans – Refused

36. Boorley Green Other

• 1974 - Z/15148/000/00 - Longhands Farm Boorley Green Botley - Construction of agricultural access to classified road – Permit • 1979 - Z/19989/000/00 - Land in Maddoxford Lane Boorley Green - 5 detached dwellings with garages – Refused 1979

• 1988 - A/28803/003/00 - Winchester Road Long Common Nr Botley – Four Painted signs – Consent • 2001 - Z/37992/000/00 - Telecom Development U - Verge At Entrance To Uplands Nursery Winchester Street Botley Hants – Prior notification to erect a 10m high telecommunications monopole with tri-sector antenna, transmission dish and 2 equipment cabins – Refused • 2005 - A/04/52645 - Winchester Road Botley – Display of free standing non-illuminating sign – Consent

37. Salisbury Bungalow

• O/06/56299 - Outline: Erection of 2no. detached dwellings with vehicular access to Pylands Lane. Withdrawn • F/06/56447 - Construction of equestrian centre with associated stable with 15 no. box stores, hay barn, office, ménage, car parking, hard standing, alterations to existing and provision of new access. Withdrawn. • C/15252/005 – Notification of intent to install 15m high telecommunication mast. Permission not required. 1998 • Z/15252/006 – Erection of 25m high telecommunication tower. Permitted 2003. • Z/15252/007 – Temporary erection of 17.5m telecommunication tower. Permitted 2003

38. Naomi Farm

• Z/17966/0 – Landfill site (east of Vantage Copse) for dumping of sand, gravel, chalk and other naturally occurring earth spoil, builders waste and hard core. Materials from construction or demolition of buildings or structures, excluding fibrous forms of asbestos or rubble from sites were toxic or soluble chemicals have been used. Hampshire County Council granted a licence 1983 • Z/15252/002 - Section 53 determination: re-grading of agricultural land using imported material. Permitted 1985 • Z/15252/003 – Formation of vehicular access. Permitted 1987 • Z/15252/004 – Construction of agricultural track. No objection raised 1993. • U/11/69873 - Certificate of lawfulness for an existing use of site as open car storage (B8) caravan storage (B8), car and truck repairs, servicing and maintenance (B2), haulage and yard (sui generis). Certificate issued 2012

39. Upper Hamble Country Park

• Z/19462/001 - Realignment of Pylands Lane/Dodwell Lane to the entrance. Permit 1980.

40. Meadow View

• Z/30857/000 – Detached dwelling. Refused 1989

Representations received

First Consultation

41. To the first consultation (16/10/2012 to 6/11/2012), 605 letters of neighbour notification were sent and 281 objections were received and can be summarised as follows:

• loss of countryside and quality farmland • better alternative locations • premature • remote/unsustainable • air pollution • traffic impact and highway safety • impact on services (health/education) • loss of golf course and associated employment • inadequate infrastructure capacity (sewers, electricity etc) - flooding and drainage - detrimental visual and landscape impact • detrimental impact upon ecological interests • lack of public transport • noise pollution • light pollution • conflict of interest with The Ageas Bowl golf course - no need for development • impact on small community of Boorley Green • impact on historic nature of Botley - inadequate consultation period • lack of employment areas

Second Consultation

42. A second round of consultation was carried out when amendments were received to the submission. (12/12/2012-2/1/2013). 626 neighbour notification letters were sent and 91 objections were received on similar grounds to the first notification round. The amendments to the plans included

• Design and Access Statement amendments: • existing community facilities plotted • more detail on existing ecology • areas of ecological interest plotted • more detail with regard to trees and hedgerows • slight changes to statistics e.g. Developed area, open space • proposed community facility area re-plan • density schedule updated

• diagrammatic examples updated to reflect advice in Quality Places SPD • allotment buffer reduced in width to 5m • storey height schedule updated to be consistent with plan • more detail on ecology strategy • open space schedule updated • more detail on landscape strategy • SUDS strategy included • landscape maintenance plan • street hierarchy update • more detail on phasing • Reports • Response to recreational pressure concerns • Updated Framework Travel Plan • Response to noise/air quality concerns • Response to impact of nitrogen deposition on ecology concerns • Updated energy statement • Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation

Third Consultation

43. A third round of consultation was carried out when further amendments were received to the submission. (10/1/2013 – 31/1/2013). 630 neighbour notification letters were sent out. These amendments included:

• Amended Energy and Sustainability statements addressing concerns of Sustainability officer • Transport Assessment Addendums, amended junction plans at Maddoxford Lane and SHB (Sundays Hill Bypass) junctions, Winchester Road pedestrian and cycle amendments to address concerns of HCC Highways. • Additional bat information, options appraisal, cross sections for SHB • Addendums to Environmental Statement.

44. 22 objections had been received to the third round of consultation (as at 4 Feb 2013) on the following grounds:

• Damage to environment • Lack of infrastructure • Traffic/Road capacity/safety • Loss of recreational facility • Preference for bus gate • Concerns re possible traffic calming schemes in future • Unsustainable • Contrary to Local Plan • Overdevelopment • Premature • Viability

• Credibility of BREEAM Statement • Noise/Air pollution • Flooding • Construction disturbance • Impact on heritage areas • Loss of quality farmland • Lack of medical centre • Lack of employment • Motives of EBC • Barn owls at Sundays Hill

45. The additional information received that warranted a third round of consultation included the following: further noise information; further information on potential of Pylands Copse ability to support Bechstein bats; further information with regard to Barn Owls around SHB site, further transport information to consider phasing of BG development and SHB and improvements to Junction 8 and further transport information regarding sustainable access.

Consultation responses

HCC consultees

46. Hampshire Highways – No objection. The data contained within the Transport Assessment is agreed. The Applicant has demonstrated that the impact of the development can be mitigated satisfactorily with a combination of off-site highway improvements and Transport Contributions. The mitigation measures proposed ensure that the impact of the development will not be severe and therefore the Highway Authority raise no Objection to this application subject to the following Section 106 Obligations;

• Provision of a half hourly bus service from 07.00-19.00 to serve the site, Hedge End Railway Station and Hedge End Centre. The service will be in operation from 1st occupation of the development for 10 years plus 5 years following final occupation of the development. • Provision of high-quality infrastructure to support bus services attending the site including the provision of RTI ready bus shelters within the site. (The specification of the infrastructure to be agreed by the County Council prior to commencement.) • Provision of the approved Travel Plan, along with a bond (figure to be agreed) and the County Council’s assessment and monitoring fees. • Provision of the Transport Contribution of £530,000 covering traffic management in Boorley Green, improvements at Winchester Street/Mill Hill/High Street/Church Lane junction, a controlled crossing on Winchester Road, and pedestrian and cycle enhancement in the vicinity of the site (including Footpath No 1) to be paid upon 1st occupation of development

• Provision of a Contribution towards delivery of an improvement scheme at M27 Junction 8 • Provision of suitable construction traffic management arrangements both on and off site • Completion of Section 278 Agreement(s) in order to implement the off- site Highway Works prior to commencement of development. • Implementation of the off-site highway works in accordance with below;

Prior to 1st occupation of any dwelling served via Winchester Road • Construction of a roundabout on Winchester Road to form the principal access to the development site as shown indicatively on drawing ITB7205-GA-201 • Improvements to existing access points and enhanced pedestrian and cycle provision on Winchester Road at Braxells Farm and Botley Park Hotel ITB7205-GA-206 Rev E • Pedestrian and cycle enhancements on Winchester Road including provision of a 3m footway/cycleway north of the proposed access roundabout to Chancellors Lane, 3m footway/cycleway along site frontage and 3m footway/cycleway south of the Pear Tree Inn as shown indicatively on drawing ITB7205-GA-207 • Visual road narrowings on Winchester Street as shown indicatively on drawing ITB7205-GA-214 • Provision of a Gateway feature on Winchester Road and associated extension of existing 30mph limit- subject to the provision of a TRO as shown indicatively on drawing ITB7205-GA-201 • Improvements to Winchester Road/Woodhouse Lane junction, inclusive of change of priority and localised footway widening as shown indicatively on drawing ITB7205-GA-209

Prior to 1st occupation of any dwelling served via Maddoxford Lane • Construction of a new access onto Maddoxford Lane, inclusive of change of priory from the eastern aspect of Maddoxford Lane into the development site, as shown indicatively on drawing ITB7205- GA-202 Rev E • Provision of a Gateway feature on Maddoxford Lane and associated extension of existing 30mph limit- subject to the provision of a TRO as shown indicatively on drawing ITB205-GA- 202 Rev E • Pedestrian and cycle enhancements on Maddoxford Lane as shown indicatively on drawing ITB7205-GA-203

required); and (ii) provided that these consents can be obtained at no more than nominal consideration. Should these works be prevented from being implemented, the County Council will receive payment for the value of the works.

Prior to 200th occupation of development • Improvements to Maypole Roundabout to provide a 60m diameter roundabout with enhanced circulatory carriageway and improvements to the 5 arm approaches as shown indicatively on drawing ITB7205- GA-210

Prior to 350th occupation of development • Construction of Sundays Hill Bypass as shown indicatively on drawing ITB7205-GA-115 Rev A

47. Hampshire Access Development Officer - Would welcome early opportunity to discuss with the developer their intentions for Footpath no 2 running through the site. Diversion should avoid the use of estate roads and preference should be for made up estate paths through landscaped or open space areas away from vehicular traffic. Diversion Order is required and footpath to remain open until granted.

48. Hampshire Children's Services - No objection subject to 106 agreement for land for educational facilities and contribution towards 2 form entry primary school. Final agreement on timing of provision required.

49. Hampshire Estates - No response.

50. Hampshire Minerals and Waste - Minerals – site incorporates part of a mineral safeguarding area which requires assessing for viable extraction. However the site contains insufficient potential mineral bearing land to support viable prior extraction. Waste - no objection subject to a Section 106 financial contribution of £95,000 towards an improvement of the Hedge End Household Waste Recycling Centre to increase capacity.

51. HCC Archaeologist - No objection subject to conditions ensuring no development is commenced without the agreement of an approved programme of archaeological evaluation and mitigation.

EBC consultees

52. Head of Regeneration and Planning Policy and Design - Policy Response: Holding Objection subject to resolution of design, layout, site capacity and sustainability issues, an options appraisal and justification for the alignment of the Sundays Hill bypass and the outcome of a Habitats Regulations Assessment. Policy issue is finely balanced – a core planning principle in the National Planning Policy Framework is that the planning system should be ‘plan- led‘. However the Borough is currently without an up to date Local Plan and does not have an up to date housing supply both of which are required by the National Planning Policy Framework.

The only relevant policies are those contained within the South East Plan 2009 and the saved policies of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2001- 2011). Without an up to date Local Plan, the application is considered premature and if permitted would prejudice both any review of the Local Plan housing strategy and the outcome of the Local Plan examination. It would also negate the purpose of the consultation and examination process. The grant of planning permission may be an appropriate response to the lack of a five year housing supply but the scale of the development, together with the delivery of a comparatively small number of houses within the next 5 years, the weight of objection, not only to the application but to the new Local Plan allocation and the significance of the proposals to the overall housing strategy are material considerations which must be weighed against the otherwise strong presumption in favour of development arising from the national imperative to increase housing land supply and the benefits it would bring. Further weight is added to these concerns by recent consultation responses indicating that a major element of the strategy may not be capable of implementation. Members may conclude that it is the issues of housing need and the 5 year housing supply that are of over-riding importance and that permission should be granted for this scheme prior to the examination and adoption of the new Local Plan. Any resolution to grant should be made as an exception to plan policies 1.CO, 18.CO, 21.NC, 22.NC, 23.NC and 134.TC of the adopted Local Plan on the basis of :

• The absence of a 5 year housing supply • The South East Plan which accepts the general principle of development in this area • The draft allocation of the site in the new Local Plan • Other benefits e.g. improvement to Woodhouse Lane and the Maypole roundabout, the provision of the Sundays Hill bypass and the provision of community, leisure and recreational facilities and the retention of the hotel. • Attention is drawn to the requirements of draft policy BO1 particularly the contribution to the cost of the Botley bypass. The advice of Transportation and Engineering and the highway authority should be sought on this requirement.

53. Design Response - No objection, the applicant has taken on board comments in relation to the design and layout of the development and this is reflected in the evolution of the masterplan and parameter plans summarised in the Design and Access Statement. Scheme represents a positive and thorough response to the opportunities and constraints of the site and its context. In response to outstanding concerns regarding the parameter plans and the DAS, the following issues have been addressed: amendments to the density study now take on board concerns about amenity space, garden sizes and the design of parking courts. Reference is made to the adherence to design principles set out in the Quality Places SPD; the allotment allocation is clarified; as is the publically accessible areas of open space, management details to be subject to 106 Agreement,

notes added referring to street trees and reference to SINC management in Phase 1.

54. Sustainability Response - No objection to amended energy and sustainability reports.

55. Head of Transportation and Engineering - Hampshire County Council is the highway authority for this application. However from an EBC perspective, the Sundays Hill by pass is welcomed although its timing requires clarification, conditions are required to ensure slow speeds on roads throughout development and final access arrangements, detailed applications will need to address refuse vehicle turning requirements, the upgrade of the footpath/cycleway link to Hedge End station is welcomed but should also be lit; there should be improvements to Woodhouse Lane, parking allocation should be such that it does not lead to disputes later. Conditions should be attached to any permission to cover size of garages, cycle parking, and adoptable street lighting throughout. Developer’s contributions towards Traffic Regulation Orders for restrictive lining throughout the development but particularly near to the school and recreational facilities are required. With mitigation as outlined in the Transport Assessment, traffic impact appears to be manageable. Modelling of Winchester Street/Botley High Street junction is also required as has implications for Air Quality Management Area. Separate Travel Plan comments have been provided to HCC and it is recommended that a bond be negotiated to ensure provisions of Travel Plan are implemented. In terms of the illustrative layout, there are some concerns that the roads indicated on the masterplan and in the design and access statement are too narrow to allow on-street parking, street trees and 3m wide cycleways. Manual for Streets, the HCC Companion Document to Manual for Streets for traffic calming, Fire safety access criteria, public right of way diversion, and provision of routes for services and protection of easement corridors must all be addressed in the detailed applications. Update – observed queue lengths should feature in assessment of junctions, green verges could be inserted between cycleways and road for aesthetic purposes.

56. Head of Countryside and Trees -

i) Housing site - Subject to a comprehensive mitigation and compensation plan for protected species being secured through relevant conditions and a S106 agreement, no objection is raised. The information provided to date has demonstrated that through mitigation and management there would not be a significant effect on the international/European/UK designated sites (SAC/SPA/Ramsar) and the SSSI. If satisfactorily addressed, a condition is required to ensure the submission of an ecological protection & mitigation plan (EPMP) to include measures to protect water quality and habitats; detailed measures to protect badgers and their setts, bats, other species and the enhancement of the SINC; and enhanced nesting opportunities for birds. Through the S106, the following to be secured; commuted sum to fund approved EMMP for a period of 15 years,

contribution to projects to mitigate recreational impacts on European protected sites; obligation on the landowner to implement the EMMP;

ii) Sundays Hill bypass - Subject to a comprehensive mitigation and compensation plan for protected species being secured through relevant conditions and a S106 agreement, in addition to that set out below, no objection is raised. The information provided to date has demonstrated that through mitigation and management there would not be a significant effect on the international/European/UK designated sites (SAC/SPA/Ramsar) and the SSSI. There is an unavoidable loss of ancient woodland and, if the committee conclude the benefits of the development outweigh the loss of ancient woodland there is a very substantial package of woodland planting proposed. If satisfactorily addressed, the following conditions are required – firstly an ecological protection and mitigation plan (EPMP) is required to include measures to protect water quality and habitats, detailed measures to protect the badger sett, bats, other species and the enhancement of the SINC; and enhanced nesting opportunities for birds and secondly the submission of a reptile translocation and mitigation strategy. Through the S106, the following is to be secured – a commuted sum to fund approved EMMP for a period of 15 years, appropriate mitigation for any other impacts on the European sites as a result of the bridge construction; obligation on the landowner to implement the EMMP.

57. In addition, in relation to the stated adverse impact upon bats, the LPA will need to consider the likelihood of a European Protected Species licence being granted against the 3 ‘tests’ contained within the Habitat Regulations. ie – is the development of overriding public interest? Is there a satisfactory alternative? Will the actions be detrimental to the maintenance of the bat population at a favourable conservation status in the natural range? Section 106 obligations are also recommended to fund the Ecological Monitoring and Management Plan required as part of the planning application; to fund a bat survey and compensatory measures within Manor Farm Country Park; mitigation for any other impacts of the Sundays Hill bypass on protected sites through changes to air quality as identified by the HRA; transfer of the SINCs and other natural areas to EBC with funding before development commences; to obligate the long term owner of these areas to implement the Ecological Management and Monitoring Plan.

58. Sports and Active Lifestyles Officer - No objection provided there is sufficient public open space of the required typologies which the development appears to satisfy. The playing fields should be one of the first phases of development in order for the pitches to become firmly established before formal play commences. The pitches and play areas will need to be laid out in accordance with an approved landscaping plan, maintained by the developer for 12 months and then adopted by EBC with the required long term maintenance funding. Funding for the provision of the children’s equipped play areas and youth zones will also be required. In terms of outdoor sports provision it is expected that the football pitches and changing facilities would be constructed by the developer in

accordance with Sport England’s and the Football Association’s requirements and the MUGA would also be designed in accordance with a plan to be approved. Again appropriate funding for long term maintenance would be required. These areas can then be transferred to Botley Parish Council if that is considered appropriate. There is a question mark with regard to indoor sports facility provision although it is noted that the community building may fulfil some of this function. Off-site contribution s to indoor sports provision may address any shortfall. In terms of the leisure facilities offered by the hotel, this should be made available to the community with extended general public pool opening times and appropriate entry fees. These issues can be dealt with by a Section 106 obligation. With regard to the loss of the golf course it is hoped that Sport England withdraws its objection as it is considered that the applicant, in its Golf Need Assessment, has addressed many of the issues raised. Although concerned about the loss of any sports facility, on balance it is considered that the proposed facilities outweigh the loss of the golf course coupled with a contribution towards qualitative improvements to existing local indoor sports facilities.

59. Head of Housing – As at 1 October 2012, there were 6176 applicants waiting for housing on the Housing Register within Eastleigh Borough. In addition to this, at April 2012 there were 934 applicants seeking intermediate housing registered on Homes in Hants. This indicates a very strong demand for affordable housing across Eastleigh. The highest need is for one and two bedroomed accommodation. Although fewer applicants need three bedroomed or larger homes there is a slower turnover and so waiting times are as long as for smaller properties. The target requirement within relevant policy and the Affordable housing SPD is for 35% of the new housing to be affordable in order to assist in the provision of a sustainable mixed and balance community. For 1400 dwellings, this would equate to 490 dwellings. A mix of house types that reflects the private mix would be normally expected. This would also apply to the Assisted Living Units although consideration would need to be given to the affordability of service charges. It is noted that some 3 bedroom flats are proposed. These would only be accepted as affordable units if they were located on the ground floor of a block with a private garden and suitable noise accommodation. The reason for this is that under housing benefit regulations, such a property would usually house two or three children. The affordable units should be pepper potted around the development (to avoid stigmatisation) in clusters of no more than 10-15 units and each phase of the development would be expected to deliver its 35% share. All affordable units should meet Lifetime Homes Standards with 3% of the units being built to Wheelchair Accessible Standards. Further dialogue is required with the applicants to ensure an acceptable scheme under the Section 106 agreement. Consultation with the Head of Housing is on-going in order to take into account viability issues as required by NPPF and Affordable Housing SPD.

60. Head of Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions with regard to the requirement for a construction management plan for both

housing and road sites (construction hours, noise including phasing of development where noise mitigation is dependent on this, dust, vibration, management/mitigation of impacts, lorry routeing, communications strategy), land contamination, energy centre, layout (to take account of noise issues, assessment and mitigation of noise impacts of roads, commercial, industrial and leisure uses on new and existing dwellings), hours of use, approval for plant and delivery times for all non-residential uses. Air quality impacts in Botley are not anticipated as modelling has shown little impact upon the Botley AQMA, as the majority of vehicle movements are expected west on Woodhouse Lane , north along Winchester Road. There are some uncertainties in modelling and increased traffic and worsening air quality is predicted to the north into Horton Heath and Fair Oak, on this basis a contribution towards the EBC air quality strategy work / monitoring and assessment in the area is expected of £15,000.

61. Head of Direct Services - No objection subject to development according with Waste and Recycling SPD. Waste Recycling centres are the responsibility of HCC.

62. Health and Community Manager - No objection subject to the provision of a community building and contributions towards a community worker. Support provision of school with facilities for community use, play areas and meeting spaces for young people. The community building should offer a range of health and wellbeing services in addition to community activities. The specification should be approved in consultation with the Parish Council to ensure that both existing and new residents benefit from the development. This is an exciting opportunity for Boorley Green to enhance its sustainability.

63. Economic Development Manager- No objection subject to 10% of the proposed employment space being flexible and affordable to support start up businesses, the location, management and operation of space to be agreed with the Economic Development Unit; a fund of £100,000 to help residents develop their skills, gain employment, progress in their career, and support enterprise and entrepreneurship. The fund would provide a part time employment and skills advisor for 4 years, training bursaries and start up grants for local residents for 4 years and business development training programmes for micro and small businesses for 4 years. Such a fund should be released following the build of 300 houses and be allocated over the following 5 years. An employment and skills plan is also required to cover the construction period and also recruitment and training for new posts in services developed in the local centre, hotel, assisted living, employment and retail spaces. One of the Council’s 3 strategic priorities is to increase Prosperity and this development can contribute by providing quality homes, a community focus and employment opportunities for local people. However the proposal will result in the loss of some jobs from golf course employment and therefore replacement jobs must be provided in addition to further employment opportunities for the increase in population.

In terms of phasing the employment space development must take place concurrently with the housing build, not afterwards.

External Consultees

64. Highways Agency - No objection subject to contributions towards an improvement scheme to M27 junction 8.

65. Hampshire Advisory Panel of Architects -This is a large site which could contribute significantly to the vitality and benefits of the locality, if executed with some quality. However two aspects require further work, namely the lack of a centre, to give a sense of identity and place and an opportunity to adopt a more sustainable approach to the quality of housing design which moves such provision forward for our times. Would like to be consulted at reserved matters stage where more input can be given.

66. Sport England - (Sport England have advised that in accordance with Circular 9/95 their consultation is non-statutory) - Object on the basis of the loss of the golf course and the inadequate layout of indoor and outdoor sports facilities. It is not considered that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the golf course is surplus to requirements. Golf participation in Eastleigh is increasing and an extension to the Ageas Bowl golf course is proposed which, in itself, is evidence of demand. There is also insufficient analysis of comparative quality and costs of nearby golf facilities ie which facility is most likely to accommodate the displaced golfers. Some clarification from stakeholder comments is also required and there appears to be no consultation with the golfers themselves although direct contact has suggested a busy membership programme of interclub matches and tournaments taking place on the existing course. There are concerns that the lack of need conclusion is based upon the particular management focus of the Botley club which does not concentrate on the ‘pay and play’ market. It is disappointing that EBC has not carried out its own independent assessment of need for golf courses. With regard to proposed sport facilities, the additional sports facilities are not considered to outweigh the loss of the golf course. In addition they should be clustered together without severance by footpaths or roads. A condition for community use of the school facilities and the hotel facilities is recommended.

67. Tourism South East - No response received.

68. Natural England – Interim response – Although unable to formally remove an outstanding objection based on the information currently submitted by the applicant, given the ongoing discussions the following interim comments can be made:

• Natural England are satisfied the revised traffic management options appraisal does clarify that there were no other viable options for routing additional traffic to the M27 on the Sundays Hill bypass site. Emerging work suggests the loss of ancient woodland can be adequately

mitigated and the chose bridge design is likely to lead to the least impact on ancient woodland in terms of loss of habitat during construction. The mitigation package offered for the loss of ancient woodland exceeds that lost but the LPA is reminded that a very substantial compensation package of woodland planting should be a condition of any permission. • The draft Southampton Water/Hamble Disturbance Project work undertaken by EBC is welcomed. Provided contributions are secured and mitigation is delivered, Natural England is likely to be in a position to withdraw its objection in regard to in-combination impacts on the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area. • With regards to the granting of a European Protected Species (EPS) licence, it appears the applicant is developing a suite of mitigation and enhancements on the Sundays Hill bypass site including general planting, reconnection of Pilands Copse to Manor Farm, bridge design/lighting to minimise impact, bat roosting in suitable locations including housing and a suite of enhancements to the country park. It appears this will form the basis of a robust package, the principle of which is supported.

Further interim response 7th February 2012:

We anticipate being in a position to remove our current objection subject to the following being agreed:

1. Imposition of conditions which address the issues identified in the HRA Screening (as previously provided in draft form); 2. Securing funding for and implementation of the draft disturbance mitigation project through the legal agreement; 3. Securing the agreed bat mitigation measures through conditions and legal agreement, in which case an EPS licence is unlikely to be refused.

69. Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions requiring a sustainable urban drainage scheme, a foul and surface water disposal scheme with pollution prevention devices, a construction and environmental management plan.

70. Ramblers Association - No objection subject to a condition ensuring that the public right of way no 2 is retained in a landscaped environment making good use of open space, traffic free and not on footways; that there are links within the development connecting it in the direction of Footpath no 1 which runs west to Shamblehurst Lane and Hedge end railway station; and that the comprehensive treatment of the footpaths, as expressed in the Masterplan, is not lost in individual detailed applications. This development proposes an extensive network of new paths and open space which if completed as proposed in the Masterplan will provide considerably more public space for recreation whilst retaining the functionality of the existing path in a safer setting. The development is, from the point of view of public access, an improvement.

To amended plans - Welcome the proposal to connect development with eastern end of footpath no 1. Footpaths should also be open to cyclists, their ownership should be clear; where path comes close to houses, there should be a planted gap alongside footpath.

71. Hampshire Wildlife Trust -Objects on the basis of loss of biodiversity contrary to Local Plan policies. Concern is around the cumulative impact upon the nearby European protected wildlife sites (along the coast) not being sufficiently mitigated in the absence of an agreed strategic comprehensive package of mitigation and offsetting measures (the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project). In the absence of such measures, it is considered that there would be a likely adverse effect on these sites and therefore the proposal should be subject to an Appropriate Assessment in accordance with the Habitats and Species Regulations (2010).Concern is also around the loss of wildlife on site especially around the protected Ford Lake. Experience has shown that urban edge woodlands become a magnet for activities such as camp-building, off-road cycling, rope swings with damage being caused to ground flora and woodland understorey. Garden waste tipping is also a concern and the orientation of dwellings towards Ford Lake is not considered to be an effective measure to control this activity. The loss of barn owl hunting habitat is also of concern. It is not considered that the retention of buffer strips adjacent to the Ford Lake woodland will be sufficient mitigation. Loss of ancient woodland on the Sundays Hill bypass site. Also bat surveys on this site have not included reference to the rare and difficult to detect Bechstein’s bat. Finally the development is considered premature in terms of a strategic assessment through the Local Plan process with particular regard to transport infrastructure. Objection sustained following further information produced by applicant 4 Dec 2012. Clarification that Maddoxford Meadows SINC does not fall within the development footprint welcomed. A well resourced scheme of management, including a warden will help to manage predictable and unpredictable issues. However the quality and character of the land will change from wildlife within a private amenity landscape to one within a publically accessible urban matrix. Concern with regard to barn owl foraging habitat remains.

72. Southern Water - No objection. A public water trunk main exists across the site which may need diversion and consent will be required for this work. There are also private sewers located on the site which may become public and therefore an investigation is required to ascertain the number of properties served. There is also a treated effluent pipe within the site which requires protection and no development or tree planting should be located within 3 metres of the centreline of this pipe. There is inadequate foul sewerage capacity and therefore additional off-site sewers or improvements to existing sewers will be required. Section 98 of the Water Industry Act 1991 provides a legal mechanism through which the appropriate infrastructure can be requested by the developer. The applicant will need to ensure long term management of Suds facilities in perpetuity. Conditions required agreeing measures to divert or protect the

public water supply main; Suds drainage details to specify responsibility and long term management and maintenance plan and that there shall be no development until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal have been agreed. Informatives required that the developer should enter into formal agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure required to service the development and that a formal application for connection to the water supply is required.

73. National Grid - No response received

74. SSE Power Distribution - No objection subject to a condition requiring details of any modifications to the electricity infrastructure to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with the SSE) before development commences.

75. Fisher German (Esso Petroleum Pipelines) - Esso has no objections to the proposal so long as the ‘Special Requirements for Safe Working’ booklet and the covenants contained in the Deed of Grant are adhered to.

76. Health and Safety Executive - Confirmation received that consultation not required.

77. British Telecom - No response received.

78. Southampton Airport - No objection.

79. Crime Prevention Officer - No objection in principle. Consultation required at detailed stage – area of possible concern relates to rear parking courts which should be avoided or made small in size (10 vehicle max), overlooked from habitable rooms and lit.

80. Eastleigh Access Group - No objection to the principle – comments will be given on reserved matters.

81. Eastleigh Southern Parishes Older Persons Forum - No response.

82. Woodlands Trust - (Sundays Hill Bypass) is within an area adjacent a ancient woodland called Pilands Copse which is an irreplaceable natural resource and home of more threatened species than any other habitat in UK. National Planning policy states that planning permission should be refused for development resulting in its loss unless the need for and benefits of the development clearly outweigh the loss. Detrimental edge effects eg temperature humidity and light can also penetrate woodland from the forest edges will also result. Buffering and expanding the woodland edge will help to reduce the impact of edge effects by increasing core areas. A buffer of 15m is proposed. We would recommend that this buffer is expanded to 30m to reduce the negative impacts of the proposal.

83. Hampshire Gardens Trust -No response received.

84. Bursledon Rights of Way and Amenities Preservation Group - No requirement for Sundays Hill bypass, traffic impact, greater congestion at Junction 8, wider traffic impact from Fareham, Locks Heath and Warsash, lack of proposals to improve pedestrian safety on Dodwell Lane south.

85. Botley Allotment Association - No response received

86. Botley Market Town Partnership - Objection on the basis that the size of development is inappropriate in the location, traffic impact, pollution, statement by the prime minister indicating that big housing estates would not be allowed next to small villages, questionable housing need figures not reflecting local need but more the impact of population increase and unchecked immigration. Pressure on infrastructure.

87. Botley Park Golfers - Object on the basis that the proposals:

• are a major departure from the approved Local Plan • would result in the loss of high grade agricultural land contrary to Development plan policies DM15 and NPPF para 12 • unsustainable in terms of accessibility (DM23, para 34) • loss of high quality and valued recreational facility (DM31 para 70-73) • unsustainable large scale landscape impacts • not on land with the least environmental and amenity value(para 110) • unsustainable for affordable homes • unacceptable increase in traffic without proposals to mitigate • would exacerbate Botley’s air quality issues. • Gross over development in semi rural area, substantial adverse effect upon historic village of Botley and would destroy a high quality sports facility • More reports required with regard to foul sewerage and other utilities in order to properly assess the viability, practicality and impact of that provision. • allocations of land should prefer land of lesser environmental value • application is premature due to the substantial and unresolved objections to the new plan which is yet to be tested at examination.

• Supplementary objection - The transport plan underpinning the draft allocation of sites counts has underestimated traffic, EBC will be reconsidering, and therefore there will be an unacceptable increase in traffic without adequate mitigation which will also exacerbate the poor air quality around Botley.

88. English Golf Union - No response received.

89. Botley Parish Action Group - First objection

• development is remote and would not provide adequate access • distant from main transport links

• traffic assessment is unrealistic congestion • excessive noise dust and pollution • exacerbation of air quality issues • will not support economic regeneration of Eastleigh Town Centre • high grade farmland will be lost • best countryside will be lost • unacceptable landscape character impact • gross overdevelopment • recreational facilities will be lost • damage to wildlife and ecology • flood risk assessment internal to the site only • more sustainable options for housing • prematurity

Second objection • Premature • unacceptable increase in traffic without adequate mitigation • exacerbation of poor air quality around Botley

Third objection (introduces two new objections) • premature and granting of permission would prejudice necessary review of housing strategy. • Drainage and sewerage proposals are unsound and unsustainable

90. Southampton, Hampshire and I.o.W. and Portsmouth PCT - Additional GP’s will be needed to support additional population. Current facilities in Botley would not accommodate this growth without further extension or relocation. Limited revenue funding available for non-priority areas. Discussions have indicated some capacity for extension at the St Luke’s practice in Botley.

91. St Luke’s Surgery -Concern with regard to impact of population on patient lists. With a Section 106 contribution towards surgery expansion, this concern would be alleviated.

92. Hedge End Surgery - Some limited patient list capacity.

93. Bus Companies - No response received (although discussion had with Applicant)

94. Wildern School - No response received.

95. Wyvern School - No response received.

96. Swanmore School - No response received.

97. Berrywood School - No response received.

98. Wellstead School - No response received.

99. Botley School - No response received.

Neighbouring Authorities/Parish Councils

100. Bursledon, Hamble and Hound Local Area Committee – to be verbally reported following presentation at the 12th February 2013 meeting.

101. Winchester City Council - Although the need for districts to identify land for major new housing developments is appreciated, this should be undertaken on a co-ordinated, plan-led basis through the local plan allocation process. This scale of development has impacts which need to be properly assessed and accounted for. Consideration is required in relation to prematurity; cumulative impact with other large developments eg Whiteley; stand alone and in-combination effects of traffic, habitat, ecology and character impacts; possible upgrading of off site linkages to surrounding countryside eg the old Bishops Waltham to Botley rail route.

102. Hedge End Town Council - Concerns relating to little evidence of roadway improvements, no reference to connections to a distributor road or highway network, how infrastructure will be improved, actual number of houses rather than approximate number, high density indicating 3000 vehicles presenting a traffic impact, only two access points that could result in bottlenecks and gridlock. A further response received indicated that HETC have great concerns as to the traffic impact centred on the Maypole Roundabout through to Sunday’s Hill. The proposed density is too high and not sustainable for the current infrastructure and concerns are expressed as to the associated impact on the environment. In addition, there is concern as to no reference being made in the application to the inclusion of a doctor’s surgery.

103. Bursledon Parish Council - No objection but referral to Local Area Committee for detail and principle.

104. Fair Oak Parish Council - Concern with regard to the implications of the level of vehicle movements travelling north through Horton Heath and Fair Oak. A full transportation report should be produced.

105. Botley Parish Council -Objects on the grounds that the proposal threatens Botley’s status as a rural parish, strains local services, adversely affects the landscape and local environment whilst failing to maintain a credible strategic gap between communities. Prematurity, lack of consultation, traffic impact through Botley, air quality through Botley, noise levels information incorrect, insufficient employment area resulting in additional traffic generation, drainage impact, affordable housing should reflect need for more 1 bedroom accommodation. With particular reference to noise.

• noise level measure incorrect (should use LA10 not LAeq/LA90 generally about 3db higher) • predictions not made at measurement locations so comparison difficult

• where measurement can be made, LA10 level significantly less than LAeq levels meaning traffic type or volumes or both incorrect • therefore predicted difference is incorrect • supplementary data continues to use LAeq data and exempts 6am to 7am whilst admitting noise levels will be higher at this time • Botley Parish Council prepared to challenge any decision made on this basis.

To amended plans – Objection on the basis of prematurity, suitability of site for housing in relation to potential alternatives, inadequate provision of affordable housing, loss of golfing facilities, traffic impact in terms of known proposals and key emissions.

To further amended plans – Objection on the basis of insignificant deliverability of housing within 5 years, deliverability of sewerage infrastructure, length of time to deliver Sundays Hill bypass, further consideration should be given to releasing land at Allington Lane and further information on noise required.

106. Curdridge Parish Council - Objection on the basis that only the minimum lawful period allowed for consultation; the scale of development; the area proposed for development; the fact that the development is no longer dependant on the building of a Botley by-pass; the soundness of the project HRA and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development; any determination being made using incorrect traffic figures especially ones that do not include in combination impact eg North Whiteley proposal; air quality deterioration; impact upon protected European sites.

107. Durley Parish Council -Objection on the basis of unsuitable and unsustainable development. Allington Lane more suitable as nearer employment sites. Loss of beautiful green space and invading strategic green gaps, loss of high grade agricultural land, traffic impact, insufficient bus infrastructure, air pollution, no additional medical services or secondary school, ecological impact, flood risk, inadequate consultation, prematurity.

Planning Policy and Guidance

108. Under the saved policies of the Local Plan (2001-2011) policies, both the Boorley Green housing site and the Sundays Hill bypass site lie outside the defined urban area. The former contains two Sites for Interest for Nature Conservation (SINCs) whilst the latter contains one. Both sites have tributaries located either within the site itself or adjacent which drain to the River Hamble which is protected under European legislation for its conservation interest. In turn the River Hamble drains into the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area/RAMSAR and the Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation. There is also a small section of the housing site subject to a proposed Minerals Safeguarding Area (MSA) (within the draft Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan).

The National Planning Policy Framework – a ‘material consideration’

109. The National Planning Policy Framework, published March 2012, replaces nearly all previous central government Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance. The policies in the Framework constitute a material consideration which must be taken into account. In light of the NPPF, Local Plan policies adopted after 2004 continue to have full weight as part of the development plan for 12 months (i.e. until 27 March 2013). This includes the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), which was adopted in 2006 (although this does not apply to policies relevant to the supply of housing in Eastleigh’s case as it cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land). The NPPF sets a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decisions on planning applications this means:

• Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; • or, where the development plan is absent, silent, or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless the adverse impacts of the development would outweigh the benefits, or specific policies in the Framework imply develop development should be restricted.

110. Particular paragraphs of relevance include the following:

• 6 – purpose of planning system is to deliver sustainable development • 7 – 3 dimensions to sustainability – economic (supporting economy and ensuring land availability), social (providing housing for existing and future generations, creating a high quality built environment with accessible local services) and environmental (contributing, protecting and enhancing natural, built and historic environment). To be sought jointly. • 12 – the development plan is starting point for decisions unless material considerations indicate otherwise. • 14 – presumption in favour of sustainable development which means approving development that accords with the development plan without delay and where the plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless adverse impacts outweigh the benefits • 17 - sets out 12 core planning principles including the principle that planning should be plan led but should not simply be about scrutiny but a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve places in which people live, to proactively drive sustainable economic development, to seek high quality design, support transition to low carbon future, promote mixed use, conserve heritage assets, manage patterns of growth and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities. • 19 – encourages economic growth through the planning system • 20 – proactively meet the needs of business.

• 26 - no retail impact assessment required for out of town shops below 2500 square metres • 29 – promotion of smart technology to reduce need to travel • 30 – encouragement to solutions which support reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion • 31 – cooperative working with neighbouring authorities for transport infrastructure necessary. • 32 – all large developments to be accompanied with a transport assessment – development only refused if cumulative impacts are severe • 34 – development that creates significant movement should be located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. • 35 – development should protect and exploit opportunities for sustainable transport modes • 36 – travel plans • 38 – promotes mixed use • 42- high quality communications infrastructure vital for sustainable growth • 47 – to boost supply of housing, ensure Local Plan meets needs for market and affordable housing, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy, identify and update specific deliverable sites to provide five years worth of housing (deliverable means available now, offer a suitable location for development now and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered within 5 years and in particular that the site is viable) • 49 – Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. • 50 – to deliver a wide choice of quality homes – should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends etc • 52 – the supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning larger scale development such as new settlements or extensions to exiting villages and towns that follow the principles of Garden Cities. • 56 – great importance is attached to good design • 58 – decisions should aim to ensure development will function well and add to quality of an area, establish a strong sense of place, optimise the site potential and create a mix of uses including green space, respond to local character, whilst not preventing appropriate innovation, create safe and accessible environments and be visually attractive. • 59 – Local Planning authorities should consider the use of design codes to deliver high quality outcomes. • 66 – work with the community in evolving designs

• 70 – plan for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities to enhance the sustainability of communities, guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, and ensure an integrated approach to locating housing with economic uses and community facilities and services. • 72 – great weight should be given to the inclusion of schools • 73 - access to high quality open spaces can make an important contribution to the health and wellbeing of communities • 74 – not to build on open land unless it is replaced, it is surplus to requirements or the development is for alternative sports provision, the need for which clearly outweighs the loss. • 75 – protect and enhance public rights of way • 95 – encourages sustainability requirements in accordance with government zero-carbon buildings policy. • 100 – seeks to direct development away from flood risk areas • 109 – seeks to protect valued landscapes, minimise the impacts on biodiversity, prevent both new and existing development from contributing to or being impacted upon in terms of unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability and remediating contaminated land where appropriate. • 110 – in preparing to meet needs, plans should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value. • 112 – take into account the benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land and where development is proposed, seek to use areas of poorer quality land. • 125 – seeks to limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation interests. • 118 – refuse permission if significant harm cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for. If adverse effect upon SSSI, only permit if the benefits of the development clearly outweigh both impacts on site but also any broader impacts. Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity should be encouraged. Permission should be refused if development results in the loss of irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodland unless the need for and benefits clearly outweigh the loss. • 120 – land contamination responsibility rests with developer • 121- ensure site is suitable for its new use in terms of ground conditions, land stability, including from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, pollution etc. • 123 – avoid, mitigate and reduce noise which gives rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development. Whilst recognising that development will often create some noise. • 125 – limit the impact of light pollution. • 126 – conservation of heritage assets. • 129 – assessment of significance of any heritage assets • 141 – developers should record and advance understanding of any heritage assets lost.

• 144 – minerals safeguarding • 187 – Local Planning Authorities should look for solutions rather than problems and work with applicants to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. • 196 – planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. • 203 – Local Planning Authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations. • 204 – Obligations should only be sought where they are necessary, directly related, related fairly and reasonable in scale and kind to the development. • 206 – Conditions should be necessary, relevant, enforceable, precise and reasonable • 173 – Sites identified in Local Plans should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions, or other requirement should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.

PPS10 – Planning for Sustainable Waste management (2005)

111. Despite the publication of the NPPF, PPS10 remains extant and sets out national policy for waste management. The overall objective of policy is to protect human health and the environment by reducing waste and using it as a resource wherever possible. The promotion of a ‘waste hierarchy’ is integral to policy – reduction, reuse, recycling and composting with disposal as a last resort.

The Development Plan

112. The development plan currently comprises The South East Plan (the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England), May 2009 and the saved policies of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2001-2011). Members should note that the policies contained within the emerging Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2011-2029) and the draft Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan are ‘material considerations’ of little weight as they are contained within unadopted plans. Relevant policies are listed below:

The South East Plan

• CC1 – Sustainable Development (relates to resource use, conservation of environment, reducing greenhouse gases, adapting

development to climate change and provision of safe, secure and socially inclusive communities) • CC2 – Climate Change ( guiding locations for major development to ensure protection against flooding, erosions, storms, water shortages and subsidence, building fabric enhancements, sustainable drainage, increasing flood storage, improving energy efficiency, reducing need to travel, reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, promoting use of renewable energy, reducing waste.) • CC3 – Resource Use (encourages policies to reduce impact) • CC4 – Sustainable Design and Construction (promotion of sustainable construction) • CC5 – Supporting an Ageing Population (encourages adaptable housing, accessible services, provision of recreational and community facilities and training opportunities to extend work life) • CC6 – Sustainable Communities and Character of the Environment (encourages sustainable and distinctive development with a sense of place) • CC7 – Infrastructure and Implementation (requires provision of necessary infrastructure for new development) • CC8 – Green Infrastructure (encourages the provision and management of accessible multi-functional green space) • H1 – Regional Housing Provision (2006-2026) (allocation of housing numbers – 7080 houses within Eastleigh plus 6000 houses within a Strategic Development Area North/North East of Hedge End, split between Winchester and Eastleigh). • H2 – Managing the Delivery of Regional Housing Provision (requires Local Planning Authorities to allocate and manage a housing land supply) • H3 – Affordable Housing (requires provision of affordable housing based on assessment of local need) • H4 – Type and Size of New Housing (encourages a range of types and sizes) • H5 – Housing Design and Density (promotes better design and higher density with appropriate local variations) • T1 – Manage and Invest (encourages sustainable transport strategies) • T2 – Mobility Management (encourages sustainable forms of transport) • T4 – Parking (restraint based policy encouraging maximum standards) • T5 – Travel Plans and Advice (travel plans required for all major development) • T6 – Communications Technology (encouraged to reduce the need to travel) • T14 – Transport Investment and Management Priorities • NRM2 – Water Quality (protection of water from pollution and provision of wastewater and sewerage infrastructure) • NRM4 – Sustainable Flood Risk Management (protection of development from flooding and incorporation of sustainable urban drainage into development)

• NRM5 – Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity (seeks no net loss and opportunities to improve biodiversity, protection of European, national and local sites, habitat regulations assessments where significant effects cannot be excluded) • NRM7 – Woodlands (seeks protection of ancient woodland and creation of new woodland) • NRM9 – Air Quality (seeks measures to reduce environmental impact of development on air quality) • NRM10 – Noise (encourages protection from unacceptable noise) • NRM11 – Development Design for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (promotes greater use of decentralised energy, energy efficiency and renewable energy) • NRM12 – Combined Heat and Power (encourages provision in all developments) • W1 – Waste Reduction (sets targets for waste reduction) • W2 – Sustainable Design, Construction and Demolition (in relation to Waste, encourages the reuse of construction and demolition materials and provision of space with layouts for storage, re-use, recycling and composting.) • C6 – Countryside Access and Rights of Way Management (take full advantage of Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to maintain, enhance and promote the Rights of Way system to facilitate sustainable access) • BE6 – Management of the Historic Environment (protection, conservation and enhancement) • TSR5 – Tourist Accommodation (seeks measures to increase sustainable links and encourage extension and upgrade to meet changing consumer demand) • S1 – Supporting Healthy Communities (provision of community access to parks, open spaces, access to housing for socially excluded groups, and provision of cycleways and footpaths., • S2 – Promoting Sustainable Health Services (encourages close working with NHS for provision of additional/reconfigured health facilities) • S3 – Education and Skills (encourages accessible provision of pre- school, school and community learning facilities and mixed use approaches) • S5 – Cultural and Sporting Activity (encourages increased and sustainable provision based on an up-to-date strategy) • S6 – Community Infrastructure (mixed and creative use of accessible community facilities encouraged, priority given to health and education) • SH1 – Core Policy (development concentrated on existing allocations until 2016, then focussed on Strategic Development Areas) • SH2 – Strategic Development Areas (including 6000 houses North/North East of Hedge End plus other facilities) • SH3 – Scale, Location and Type of Employment Development

• SH5 – Scale and Location of Housing Development 2006-2026 (7080 houses, 354 annual average delivery plus 6000 houses in a North East/North of Hedge End Strategic Development Area) • SH6 – Affordable Housing

Saved Policies of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2001-2011)

• 1.CO – Criteria for development in the countryside • 11.CO – Extension of non residential buildings within the countryside (if no unacceptable physical, visual or traffic impact) • 15.CO – Conversion of rural buildings for employment purposes (if sound construction, retains intrinsic qualities, self contained, protects amenity, no unacceptable traffic generation, no extensive hard surfaces, subject to sequential approach) • 17.CO – Extension of authorised commercial uses within the countryside. • 18.CO – Protection of landscape character • 19.CO – Protection of landscape features eg. ponds, lakes etc • 22.NC – Protection of SSSIs • 23.NC - Protection of SINCs • 25.NC – Promotion of biodiversity • 26.NC – Protection of wildlife network • 28.ES – Waste Collection and Storage • 30.ES – Noise sensitive development • 31.ES – Residential development and noise • 32.ES – Pollution Control • 33.ES – Air Quality • 34.ES – Reduction of greenhouse gases • 35.ES – Contaminated Land • 36.ES – Lighting • 37.ES – Energy Efficiency • 38.ES – Renewable Energy • 39.ES - River Corridors • 41.ES – Development affecting water courses • 42.ES – Development in a catchment of a water course • 43.ES – Areas at risk of flooding • 44.ES – Development in areas at risk of flooding • 45.ES – Sustainable drainage • 59.BE – Design Criteria • 62.BE – People with disabilities • 63.BE – Car Park Design • 64.BE - Overhead Electricity Lines • 66.BE – Information and Communications Technology • 68.BE - Notifiable Installations • 71.H – Mixed Use Development • 72. H – Residential Densities • 73.H – Housing Mix

• 74.H – Affordable Housing • 89.T - New Roads Criteria • 100. T – Transport and New Development • 101.T – Road traffic Reduction Targets • 102. T – New Accesses • 103.T – Green Travel Plan • 104.T – Parking provision • 108.T – Training and start up employment provision • 145.OS – Loss of open space • 147.OS – Open Space Requirements • 152.OS – New footpaths and cycleways • 153.OS – New Bridleways • 160.TA – Leisure and Tourism facilities in the countryside • 165.TA – Percent for Art • 168.LB – Archaeological Evaluation • 190.IN – Infrastructure Provision • 191.IN – Developers Contributions

Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2011-2029) – a material consideration although of limited weight due to the fact that it has yet to undergo examination and is unadopted.

Strategic policies: • S1 – Sustainable Development • S2 – Promotion of New Development • S3 – Housing Locations (inc 1400 houses at Boorley Green) • S4 – Employment Provision • S5 – Green Infrastructure • S6 – Transport Infrastructure • S7 – Strategic Footpaths, cycleway and bridleway links

Development Management Policies: • DM1 – General Criteria for New Development • DM2 – Environmentally Sustainable Development • DM3 – Zero or low carbon energy • DM4 – Flood Risk • DM6 – Sustainable Surface Water Management • DM7 – Pollution • DM8 – Public utilities and communications • DM9 – Biodiversity • DM11 – New employment development in urban areas • DM13 – Workforce training requirements and new jobs • DM15 – Protection of best and most valuable agricultural land (Grades 1,2,3a) • DM19 – Retail Development • DM23 – General Development Criteria – transport • DM24 – Parking • DM25 – Residential Development in urban areas

100

• DM28 – Affordable Housing • DM29 – Internal space standards for residential development • DM31 – Protection of recreation and open space facilities • DM32 – Provision of recreation and open space facilities with new development • DM33 – New and enhanced recreation and open space facilities • DM35 – Community, leisure and cultural facilities. • DM37 – Funding Infrastructure

Parish Policies: • BO1 – Land North and East of Boorley Green • BO3 – Botley by-pass • BU3 – Pylands Lane Housing site • BU4 - Sundays Hill bypass

The Draft Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan – a ‘material consideration’

• Policy 15 – Safeguarding mineral resources

Supplementary Planning Documents

• Environmentally Sustainable Development (March 2009) • Quality Places (November 2011) • Residential Parking Standards (January 2009) • Biodiversity (September 2009) • Affordable Housing (July 2009) • Accommodation for Older People and Those in Need of Care (May 2011) • Housing Mix (February 2003) • Planning Obligations (July 2008, updated 2010)

Assessment of proposal: Development plan and / or legislative background

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

114. Although it is arguable whether or not the proposal is in accordance or otherwise with the Development Plan, which incorporates the South East Plan (Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England), May 2009 and the saved policies of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2001-2011, using the precautionary principle, it is considered that the development does represent a departure, and the proposal has been advertised as such. Although the South East Plan advocates the provision of a Strategic Development Area of 6000 houses in an area north/north east of Hedge

101

End, this site is for 1400 dwellings within the same area. That being so, applying Section 38 (6) above, it is necessary to consider whether there are any material considerations (such as the NPPF) which indicate that the application can be determined otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

Considerations

The Principle of Development – Accessibility/Location

115. In terms of facilities, Boorley Green has one public house and lies slightly apart from both Botley and Hedge End. This quiet, slightly set apart character is valued by its residents but is undesirable in land use planning terms. For some time, central government guidance has encouraged sustainable forms of land use where facilities and amenities used on a daily basis can be accessed by sustainable forms of transport eg. walking, cycling, bus rather than the car. This policy seeks to assist in meeting targets for reducing CO2 emissions, the accumulation of which contribute towards global warming. Such a policy also has an impact on health, addressing obesity and lack of exercise issues and traffic congestion on local and strategic roads.

116. An audit has been carried out which indicates that a commercial hourly bus service is available from Boorley Green to and from Botley and facilities available nearby include doctors, dentists, shops, leisure, entertainment, community facilities, secondary schools and employment areas. The application includes proposals to enable sustainable access to these facilities including the provision of a new twice hourly bus service linking Boorley Green with Botley, Hedge End Station and the Hedge End superstores. The improvements would allow two buses an hour to serve the village, which together with the existing hourly service, would ensure good sustainable links to facilities. Botley lies 1.3 miles from the site and can be accessed by existing pedestrian and cycle links although these are proposed to be upgraded to ensure genuine accessibility (see under Access below). An alternative 1 mile route to Botley is available along Footpath No 3 from the eastern edge of the site although the path is unlit. Hedge End centre is located at a distance of 2 miles via Woodhouse Lane although this road is currently unlit with a narrow footpath. Shamblehurst Lane offers another, probably less attractive walking route towards Hedge End centre. This route is the longest at 3.3 miles and has no dedicated footway or lighting. A more attractive option would be to use Footpath no 1 which offers a direct and shorter pedestrian route towards Hedge End which terminates at Hedge End Station. Surface upgrading and drainage works are proposed to this footpath and can be implemented under existing legislation. Any further improvements in the future could be carried out using proposed financial contributions from the developer. This upgrade is supported by NPPF paragraph 35 and 38 which seeks to exploit opportunities for sustainable transport modes, adopted plan policy 152.OS and emerging Local Plan policy S7. This upgrade would offer

102

wider opportunities for more sustainable access by rail to a much wider area including Eastleigh, Winchester, Fareham and Portsmouth.

117. Everyday facilities such as education, employment and leisure are integral to the proposals and their incorporation minimises the need to travel. This mixed use approach improves not only the sustainability credentials of the new development but also those of the existing village, whose residents currently enjoy very few facilities within walking distance. Overall, with the implementation of the proposed improvement measures, a sustainable location would be created which would then accord with guidance for the locating of new housing development contained within Paragraph 34 of the NPPF, adopted plan policies CC2, 152.OS, 100.T, 101.T, and emerging plan policies S1 and DM23.

118. There is much local concern, as evidenced in over 300 letters of objection, that the proposed allocation of this site does not accord with the NPPF guidance or the Council’s own sustainability appraisal which assesses and compares possible housing allocation locations in terms of sustainability. Local residents believe that there could be better located, more sustainable alternatives for housing development on land of ‘lesser environmental value’. Abundant and specific reference is made to the ‘Allington Lane’ site (a larger site considered in the SHLAA). Although the Environmental Statement submitted with this application considers possible alternative sites for development , Members should note that in regard to planning ‘applications’ rather than ‘allocations’ there is no requirement for a sequential approach to be taken. Rather, the NPPF stresses the importance of achieving sustainable development to meet identified needs. If a Local Plan has not been adopted which embodies the outcome of a consideration of alternatives, then an application for housing development must be considered against any other adopted elements of the Development Plan (the South East Plan and the saved policies of the adopted EBLP Review (2001-2011) with limited weight being given to the pre submission EBLP (2012-2029)). Consideration should also include other planning policy guidance e.g. Supplementary Planning Documents, material considerations e.g. the NPPF, and the specific merits or disbenefits of the individual proposal

The Principle of Development – Loss of Golf Course

119. The proposals incorporate the loss of an established and popular 18 hole golf course attached to the Botley Park Hotel and Country Club. The NPPF provides guidance in paragraph 74 on how to assess the acceptability or otherwise of the loss of a recreational facility. It states that either an assessment is needed to clearly show that the facility is surplus to requirements OR that the facility is replaced OR the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs of which clearly outweigh the loss. Adopted development Plan policies S1, S5, 145.OS and emerging plan policies DM31, DM32, and DM33 echo these criteria.

103

120. A detailed Golf Needs Assessment has been carried out. This indicates that between 2008 and 2011 there was a 1.06% increase in golf participation in the Eastleigh area. This bucks the trend of an overall national decline in golf participation. National trends also indicate a switch in demand from traditional golf membership to casual pay and play membership. The assessment also shows that the majority of existing users of the Botley Park Golf Club live within a 15 minute drive time catchment area. However the majority of pay and play users at Botley Park live within an 80 minute drive time catchment area indicating that this element of the use stems from weekend breaks or conferencing uses. This business model, which limits golf course availability to local casual pay and play membership, has meant that the golf club has been unable to react sufficiently to the trend away from traditional membership based income to casual pay and play. Competition with other nearby clubs who do offer this facility has therefore increased and stakeholder consultation has evidenced a locally saturated market. The needs assessment states that the commercial viability of the Botley Park Club has been reduced to a point where a financial loss is forecast for this year. A latent demand of 1185 people ‘wanting to play more golf’ has also been calculated. However the conclusions of the assessment show that both the latent demand and the 363 displaced Botley Golf club members could be accommodated at other clubs within a 15 minute drive time where there is significant spare capacity even at peak times. This methodology used in the golf needs analysis has been accepted both by planning appeal Inspectors and by Sport England in other areas.

121. The parameter land use plan and Design and Access Statement indicates provision for alternative sport and recreation uses including three playing pitches with changing facilities, allotments, community orchards, an increased network of footpath, cycle and bridleways, informal amenity space, children’s play areas, youth play areas, a multi-use games area and private tennis courts, larger gym, dance studio and new 25m swimming pool associated with the hotel extensions. Community use of the school playing fields and the hotel sports facilities is also envisaged subject to agreement with the Education Authority. Finally a multifunctional community building is proposed with the flexibility for use for indoor sport such as exercise classes. The alternative sports facilities could be shared between the proposed new and existing residents of Boorley Green who currently enjoy very few facilities within easy walking distance. EBC’s Sports and Active Lifestyles Manager supports the opening up of the recreational use on this site and considers that, on balance, this outweighs the loss of the golf course. Although an off-site indoor sports contribution was originally proposed, the better option was considered to be provision on site through the multipurpose community facility. An obligation is proposed to ensure that the facility is designed to allow indoor sports use within one of its halls.

122. Although confirmed as a non-statutory consultee, Sport England has been consulted on the application. An objection has been received on the basis of the loss of the golf course with no clear evidence of a lack of demand,

104

or the provision of a replacement, or alternative sports provision outweighing its loss. Sport England has had direct contact with the Botley Park golfers who have provided good evidence for the use of the golf course for many tournament and events. Sport England state that their position would be reversed only if the golf course were to be replaced elsewhere. With regard to the proposals themselves, Sport England questioned the positioning of some of the sports facilities and the retention of the public right of way through the site severing the playing fields.

123. In response to these comments, it is considered that the evidence pointing to the popularity of the course for golf tournaments and events underlines the fact that the course is being used for a particular type of golfing activity which is in decline and for which there is an evidenced lack of demand. In terms of the proposals themselves all issues regarding the location of land uses have been addressed thoroughly with the Design and Access Statement and are accepted. The Ramblers Association particularly welcome the positioning of the public right of way and the return of the golf course to wider public use. Sport England have suggested a condition to ensure shared community use for the school site although, as noted above, such a condition would require agreement from Hampshire County Council as education authority.

124. In conclusion therefore, although the Golf Course is very popular and highly valued by its members, as borne out by their strong levels of objection and deputations to Sport England, its loss requires consideration against the fact that considerable spare capacity exists at other nearby golf clubs and that there is a prospect of wider community access and potentially greater opportunities for sporting activities or informal recreation. Currently a large open space caters for a comparatively small number of users who use it for one particular sport. Golf needs are specifically excluded from the Council’s open space needs assessment on this basis and are not afforded protection within emerging Local Plan policies. Accordingly it is considered that the development would meet the requirements laid down in national guidance (NPPF paragraph 70,73 and 74) and adopted plan policies CC8, 145.OS and emerging plan policy DM31 for the protection of open space and the enhancement of sporting provision.

The Principle of Development – Proposed Mineral Safeguarding Area

125. The NPPF under paragraph 143 requires planning authorities to define Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSA’s) in order to ensure that proven resources are not needlessly sterilised by non-mineral development. This designation is contained within the emerging Local Plan and is therefore of limited weight in the consideration of this proposal. In regard to this designation, the emerging Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan, states under Policy 15, that an assessment is to be made with regard to the suitability of the material for extraction within the safeguarded area affected by development. The applicants have carried out an assessment and the response from Hampshire County Council is that there is

105

insufficient potential mineral bearing land to support viable prior extraction. Under the adopted amended Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2007 and the saved policies from The Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan, the site is not contained within a Minerals Safeguarding Area.

The Principle of Development – Ground Conditions

126. The application has been submitted with a ground condition survey which considers the characteristics of the ground in terms of geology and soil type, hydrology and contamination. The Environmental Statement also considers these issues. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF seeks to prevent any unacceptable impacts upon development from flooding, land instability or soil pollution. Paragraph 121 seeks to ensure that a site is suitable for its intended use in terms of ground conditions, land stability including from natural hazards or former activities. The soils across most of the site comprise sandy clay over sand except in the centre and the north western corner of the site where clay soils were encountered. Fairly high groundwater levels were encountered and some low lying areas are subject to water logging. Poor rates of water infiltration were found over most of the site. Tests for contaminated ground indicated no significant contamination. All these findings have implications for the design and layout of the development, both of which are detailed matters to be considered at a later stage. However the assessments indicate that development would need to make use of a surface water drainage regime that would not rely on soakaways and construction techniques which may require piling in the clayey areas of the site. In terms of contamination, more detailed investigations would be needed as part of each reserved matters application. In principle though, development would not be subject to any unacceptable impacts providing appropriate drainage and construction strategies were employed. This would be in accordance with Paragraph 109 and 121 of the NPPF, and adopted plan policies 35.ES, 45.ES and emerging plan policies DM6 and DM7.

The Principle of Development – The Provision of Housing

127. The Development Plan comprises the South East Plan (Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England), May 2009 and the saved policies of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2001-2011. The emerging Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2012-2029) has been considerably delayed. As an unadopted plan, Members should note that its policies carry little weight in the consideration of this proposal although Policy BO1 does allocate the site for housing.

128. The South East Plan (SEP) has been part of the development plan since 2009. Policy H1 states that the housing requirement for Eastleigh is 7080 dwellings between 2006 -2026 (equating to 354 per annum) and that sufficient land should be allocated to facilitate delivery. A further strategic development area (SDA) was identified for 6000 houses in an area north east/north of Hedge End to be shared between Eastleigh and Winchester

106

subject to a further study. (The Boorley Green site lies within that area of search).

129. Despite central government’s stated intention to revoke Regional Strategies, this process has not been completed and therefore only limited weight can be attached to this intention at the current time. Therefore, despite EBC’s stated opposition to the SDA, the SEP remains in place and, in accordance with Section 38 (6) above, must be afforded due weight in the consideration of planning applications.

130. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF paragraph 48), relevant policies contained within the existing EBLP (2001- 2011) for the supply of housing cannot be considered up to date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. There are a number of methods of calculating housing requirement but very current advice being given to nearby local authorities by Planning Inspectors in their Local Plan examinations indicates that, however the five year housing requirement is calculated, EBC cannot currently demonstrate a supply of deliverable housing sites within the 5 year period (2012-2017). Any updated figures are currently likely to indicate a worsening situation for housing land supply.

131. On this basis, Members are advised that Policy 1.CO of the EBLP (2001- 2011) which seeks to protect the countryside from development outside of the defined urban areas is time-expired as the boundaries were drawn against a background of housing requirements pre 2012. The weight to be afforded to this policy in the consideration of this application is therefore much reduced. However, where the saved policies within the EBLP (2001- 2011) do not pertain to housing supply (see topic discussion in paragraphs below), they remain of significant weight.

132. A pre-submission draft of the new Local Plan has been published which will require further revision and consultation after a recent consultation and the decision by the landowner (Hampshire County Council) to withhold land for a significant housing allocation (the 1000 dwelling Woodhouse Lane site). The plan is therefore subject to considerable delay and uncertainty in its progression towards submission to the Planning Inspectorate for examination. Therefore, despite a specific policy within this emerging plan which allocates housing on this site (Policy BO1), little weight can be afforded to this Plan in the consideration of this application.

133. The NPPF offers clear guidance for the assessment of planning applications in these circumstances. At the heart of decision taking should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development of which there are three dimensions, social, economic and environmental. For decision taking this means approving proposals that accord with the development plan without delay and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission for sustainable development unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF as

107

a whole, or unless specific policies indicated that development should be restricted.

The Five Year Housing Supply

134. Government policy is explicit in requiring Local Planning Authorities to significantly boost their supply of housing. As part of this process the identification and annual update of a supply of specific deliverable sites is required sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against the housing requirement with an additional buffer of 5% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Policy H2 of the South East Plan also requires a housing land supply to be allocated and managed. In March 2012 the latest position in regards to housing land supply was published. It can be summarised as follows:

Plan Requirement (April 2012 – Supply position March 2017)

ADOPTED PLAN FIGURES

Against SEP (without SDA 1505 (301 per annum) 4.9 year supply or 5% buffer) Against SEP (without SDA 1581 (316 per annum) 4.6 year supply but with 5% buffer) Against SEP (with SDA and 2054 (411 per annum) 3.6 year supply 5% buffer – assume 4500 out of 6000 shared with Winchester)

EMERGING PLAN FIGURES

Emerging EBLP (without 2650 (530 per annum) 2.8 year supply 5% buffer) Emerging EBLP (with 5% 2783 (557 per annum) 2.6 year supply buffer)

135. The table above shows a shortfall in the 5 year housing land supply however it is calculated. The lack of a 5 year housing supply engages the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the balance of adverse impacts versus the benefits of the proposal. These impacts are considered later in the report.

136. To boost the supply of housing as per NPPF paragraph 48, it is important to consider the deliverability of the proposed houses in terms of the actual contribution towards immediate housing need. The applicant envisages two house builders commencing build in early 2014 on non-golf course areas of the site. The golf course is envisaged to become available in 2015. With a commencement date of early 2014 and 150 houses built up to June 2016 with a following rate of 150 houses per annum, this site would deliver approximately 375 houses by the end of 2017. Recent call-in

108

decisions have indicated that this must be considered as a significant contribution towards five year housing land supply. Figures much less than this have been accepted as making a significant contribution on the basis that housing is needed now and that to refuse applications on the basis of the size of their contribution simply contributes to the ever growing and urgent national housing need. If planning permission is granted on the basis of immediate housing need, it is important to encourage commencement of development rather than land banking. To this end, the applicants have agreed, in the event of a permission being granted, to a one year time limit rather than the usual three year limit for submission of reserved matters. This would encourage the early implementation of any permission and therefore a genuine contribution towards 5 year housing land supply.

137. The viability of development is also a consideration in terms of deliverability under the NPPF. The developers have expended considerable sums in the submission of this application and have made good progress in assessing some of the larger costs of development e.g. Sewerage infrastructure, education requirements, transport infrastructure, affordable housing etc. These are now known and it has been confirmed by the EBC Valuer that this site is viable for development now.

Prematurity

138. The Council will be unable to submit the emerging Local Plan for examination much before mid- to end-2014, with adoption now estimated at mid-2015.

139. The prematurity issue is whether the decision should be made now on this site, or whether it should be refused so that it can be assessed as part of the overall local plan strategy and in the light of the objections and competing merits and demerits of other sites. In addition to local residents’ objections on these grounds, two barristers opinions in the form of letters have been written on behalf of other developers making prematurity arguments against determination of this site now to which members are referred.

140. The Government’s 2005 document General Principles of Development which is still a current document reads inter alia as follows :

Prematurity: • In some circumstances, it may be justifiable to refuse planning permission on grounds of prematurity where a DPD is being prepared or is under review, but it has not yet been adopted. This may be appropriate where a proposed development is so substantial, or where the cumulative effect would be so significant, that granting permission could prejudice the DPD by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which are being addressed in the policy in the DPD. A proposal for development which has an impact on only a small area would rarely

109

come into this category. Where there is a phasing policy, it may be necessary to refuse planning permission on grounds of prematurity if the policy is to have effect. • Otherwise, refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will not usually be justified. Planning applications should continue to be considered in the light of current policies. However, account can also be taken of policies in emerging DPDs. The weight to be attached to such policies depends upon the stage of preparation or review, increasing as successive stages are reached. For example: Where a DPD is at the consultation stage, with no early prospect of submission for examination, then refusal on prematurity grounds would seldom be justified because of the delay which this would impose in determining the future use of the land in question. Where a DPD has been submitted for examination but no representations have been made in respect of relevant policies, then considerable weight may be attached to those policies because of the strong possibility that they will be adopted. The converse may apply if there have been representations which oppose the policy. However, much will depend on the nature of those representations and whether there are representations in support of particular policies. Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the planning authority will need to demonstrate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the DPD process.

The Boorley Green site is the largest pre-submission consultation greenfield allocation. It also is linked to proposed new roads – namely the Sundays Hill bypass and roads around Botley. The argument is advanced that permitting Boorley Green may set a trend for further development in the area. However the same or similar strategic arguments could be advanced for most large scale housing developments whenever they come forward.

138. It is also desirable that the many objections against Boorley Green be heard at a local Plan Inquiry (the democratic process issue). However, against this it can be said that the determining of ad-hoc planning applications such as this is also a democratic process, in which objectors often have a better opportunity to make their voices heard than would be the case at a Local Plan Inquiry, and in which democratically elected Councillors make the decisions.

139. In summary, there are reasonable prematurity arguments and democratic arguments against a grant of permission on Boorley Green now. If members conclude that these arguments are determinative, members should refuse on prematurity grounds.

140. However these arguments are not necessarily conclusive – they are simply factors to be put into the scale and balanced against other material considerations when the decision is made. Prematurity is one relevant circumstance among others, and the weight to be given to it

110

will depend on the individual circumstances of the case. Prematurity is not a bar to the grant of planning permission.

141. It is considered that as that this site is included within the pre- submission draft plan it would be difficult to substantiate a refusal by reference to it prejudicing the DPD process. The proposals are also located within the general area suggested by the South East Plan. Furthermore the application seeks to deliver housing for which the South East Plan shows a clear requirement. The lack of a 5 year housing land supply and the proposal’s impact upon that supply in terms of its delivery timetable and are considered to be significant factors. The proposals are necessary to meet housing supply needs and in the circumstances the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the NPPF applies. It is recommended to Members that these considerations are sufficient to outweigh the prematurity and democratic arguments.

The Principle of Development – other uses

141. Key objectives of both national and local planning policy are to encourage sustainable mixed use communities and reduce the need to travel. To address these objectives the development is proposed to incorporate a school and a nursery to provide for the needs of the children within the new and existing community; to retain and extend the existing employment area within Braxells Farm to assist in providing local jobs; to deliver shared recreational and social facilities including a community hall, MUGA and changing facilities; to provide a shop to reduce the need to travel further afield for everyday groceries and finally to extend the existing Botley Park Hotel to incorporate more bedrooms with an associated enhanced conferencing, function and recreational facility. The proposed phasing would ensure that the community facilities would be built at an early stage of the development to enable early social integration and absorption of the development into the area. Detailed applications for all uses will be required and the timing of their implementation is proposed to be controlled through a phasing condition.

142. There have been some concerns expressed that some of these uses are town centre uses that should properly be located within the nearby town and village centres and indeed the application can be considered to represent a departure in terms of town centre uses expansion out of town. There has also been a suggestion that for the shop and hotel extensions, a sequential test is required (where other more central locations are considered). However it is not considered that Development Plan policy or NPPF guidance requires the overall assessment of this application to be a compilation of individual assessments of its disaggregated uses. The principle of non-residential land uses in association with housing development are considered acceptable in planning terms and in accordance with Development Plan policies and NPPF guidance relating to mixed uses, the minimisation of the need to travel and sustainable

111

development, (adopted plan policies CC1, CC5, CC6, NRM11, S1, S3, SH3, SH6, 15.CO, 68.BE , and emerging plan policies S1, S4, S5, S6, DM11, DM19, DM35)

Land Use and Amount – the Parameter Plans

143. For approval are six parameter plans which illustrate a framework for development which would be evolved through the reserved matters applications:

144. The site boundary parameter plan outlines the area in which works are proposed. The extent of the site is described in the site and surroundings paragraph above.

145. The land use parameter plan indicates how the land is proposed to be used across the site. The drainage report shows the northern boundary around Ford Lake to be within flood zone 3 and therefore not suitable for development. It is also ecologically protected and a 15 meter buffer zone is proposed between the protected area and the development in order to reduce any impacts. Another wet valley area runs through the centre of the site from north east to south west. This area contains the two existing lakes and Botley Park Wood SINC and is proposed to remain undeveloped. Other constraints include the water and sewage infrastructure, gas and oil pipelines, overhead electricity lines, existing trees, hedges and ditches and the undulating nature of the site. The locations of the land uses have been considered against these constraints and against Development Plan policies encouraging sustainable mixed use development that provides for the everyday needs of residents whilst protecting vulnerable ecological areas and areas liable to be unacceptably impacted by flooding, noise etc. The outcome of this exercise has resulted in a proposal for two non-residential ‘hubs’ around which the residential parcels would be located.

146. The first hub would include the commercial/employment uses and would include a convenience store, employment use, a pub and private leisure and recreational uses centred around the existing hotel complex and ex farm buildings in the south west of the site. An assisted living block is also proposed within this hub to allow proximity with the convenience store and extended recreational facilities provided within the hotel. Increasing the density of uses in this area allows for the opportunity for the introduction of a sustainable district energy system and an ‘energy centre’ land use is proposed within this area.

147. Situated to the south of the site the second hub is proposed. A different character is envisaged for this hub based around community and education uses. A two form entry primary school, a nursery, a multifunctional community building, a multiuse games area, a community orchard, allotments, and public open space including football pitches with changing facilities is proposed for this area. The open space area in this location is designed to create both separation and shared usage between

112

the proposed new development and the nearest existing properties within Boorley Green.

148. Between and around these two ‘hubs’ 1400 dwellings are proposed. The Design and Access Statement gives more information with regard to the scale of residential development but the exact design and layout would be the subject of reserved matters applications.

149. The proposed location for various land uses appears to have evolved in a logical manner and the process has included the consideration of site constraints, a context analysis, stakeholder engagement and the application of development plan policy and supplementary planning guidance. On this basis the general layout of land uses upon the site is considered acceptable and in accordance with the NPPF at paragraph 38 which promotes mixed use, paragraph 58 which promotes development that will add to the quality of an area, establish a strong sense of place, optimise site potential and create a mix of uses, paragraph 70 which seeks the use of shared spaces and integration of housing and community uses with economic uses, paragraph 72 which gives great weight to the inclusion of schools into plans, and paragraph 109 which directs uses away from valued landscapes and seeks to minimise impacts upon biodiversity. The land use parameter plan is also considered to be in accordance with adopted plan policies CC1-8, S1, S3, S5, S6, C6, TSR5, 23.NC, 71.H, and emerging plan policies S1, DM1.

150. The Residential Density Parameter Plan gives an indication of the scale of development and indicates the general location of the dwellings and their density. 38 parcels of land indicating differing densities are proposed. These parcels are divided up on the basis of site constraints, landscape character and whether the parcel would be viewed internally or externally. Generally the low density areas (15 - 25 dph) (182 units) would be located on the external edges to the site. The low-medium density areas (25 - 35 dph) (361 units) would be located along the main roads through the site. The medium density areas (35 – 45 dph) (666 units) would be located more internally to the site surrounded by the less dense housing. The highest density (60-70 dph) (121 units) would be apartments located near the centre of the site. With the assisted living block of 70 units at a density of 88dph, the average site density has been calculated at 34.6 dwellings per hectare. Although this density is higher in comparison to that found within Boorley Green (at around 25 dwellings per hectare), it is considered appropriate for a new housing development in this location. The residential density proposals have evolved in a manner that have taken account of densities in the local area, minimum house sizes, the Quality Places supplementary Planning Document and parking standards and on this basis are considered acceptable and in accordance with relevant NPPF guidance at paragraph 58 which seeks to establish a strong sense of place whilst optimising the site potential, and Development Plan policies on achieving sustainable communities ie. CC1, H5, 72.H, (adopted plan) S1 and DM1(emerging plan)

113

151. The Storey Heights Parameter Plan gives an indication of the scale of development and proposes two and a half storey dwellings (up to 10m in height) over the majority of the site with elements of three storey (up to 13m in height) reflecting the flatted units towards the centre of the site. This is considered to be appropriate and reflects the existing lower height development found at the edges of the site. In terms of the commercial uses a two storey height (up to 13m) is proposed for the shop, employment, pub, nursery and community building uses with a one storey height (up to 9m) for the energy centre. However Members should note that an energy centre is likely to incorporate a stack up to 25 metres in height. In terms of acceptability, the existing landscape character is a key consideration. The proposals seek to take into account the rural character of the land to the north, northeast and southwest and the interface with the urban edge to the south. Key vegetation patterns would be retained along with existing woodland and the remaining element of Braxells Copse atop the highest point of the site. Rather than completely screen the development with structural planting, an approach has been taken that would reduce densities and storey heights towards the rural edges whilst concentrating larger forms of development either towards the urban edge or towards the centre of the development. Green ‘fingers’ extending into and throughout the site would allow for variations in the orientation of the buildings, giving an appearance of more organic housing growth. Such an approach would also filter views from outside the site. This strategy would allow an appropriate and sensitive edge to the enlarged settlement of Boorley Green and is therefore considered acceptable in landscape character terms. The storey heights have evolved in response to landscape character, existing vegetation and buildings and views into the site and are therefore considered acceptable and in accordance with NPPF guidance contained within paragraphs 56 and 58 which seek to ensure good design and development plan policies that seek to ensure an appropriate response to context eg, H5, 59.BE, (adopted plan) and DM1 (emerging plan)

152. The Open Space Parameter Plan indicates a series of open spaces, all with differing characters. More formal areas of open space are shown both along the frontage of the site as a ‘green swathe’ between the proposed development and the existing development and towards the northern part of the site. These areas would contain children’s and teens play areas, football pitches etc. Less formal amenity space would be concentrated around the central valley area and the knoll behind the hotel. Roaming public access within the two SINC areas would be discouraged. A network of green routes would be available throughout the site and include the diverted public right of way to which the Ramblers Association have expressed their support. Under the adopted Local Plan, the total requirement for open space on this site is approximately 9.61ha (under the emerging Local Plan the figure is 10.5ha), however over 30ha is proposed. This is a significant benefit of the proposal as the amenity space will be accessible to all members of the existing and future community at Boorley Green. The proposed open spaces have evolved in a logical manner and respond to site constraints, context analysis, stakeholder engagement and

114

development plan policies and assessments and would therefore accord with guidance contained within the NPPF paragraph 73 which seeks to ensure access to high quality open spaces, paragraph 75 which seeks to protect public rights of way, adopted plan policies CC1, CC2, CC8, NRM4, NRM7, S1, S5, 147.OS, and emerging plan policies DM32 and DM33.

153. The Access and Movement Parameter Plan relates to general principles of access and movement within the site rather than the detailed reserved matter consideration (see below). The strategy for vehicular access and movement includes a main spine road connecting the two access points which splits in the southern area of the site within the community/recreation hub. One branch heads north and the other west to form a loop within the site before rejoining at a point near the centre of the site to lead out of the site to Winchester Road. Within the loop a connecting road will link the two branches of the spine road. The masterplan then illustrates a network of smaller residential streets within this structure although the exact determination of the layout is a detailed matter to be considered with later applications. The parameter plan also indicates a network of pedestrian and cycle routes which link to existing footpaths and cycle routes at various points, ensuring the option for more sustainable travel. The access parameters have evolved in response to site constraints, context analysis, stakeholder engagement, NPPF guidance at paragraph 35 seeking to exploit opportunities for sustainable transport modes, paragraph 58 which seeks to ensure a place functions well and adopted development plan policies T1, T2, 100T, 102.T, 152.OS and emerging plan policies S6, S7 and DM23.

154. In conclusion the parameter plans are the culmination of a thorough assessment of the site, the stages of which are detailed within the Design and Access Statement. The site has been shown to have the capacity for the number of dwellings stated, together with the associated non- residential land uses in a form that is considered acceptable within the landscape. Historically, outline planning applications have often left gaps in terms of reassuring Local Planning Authorities as to the context in which detailed applications will come forward. With the advent of parameter plans, there is much less uncertainty. The parameter plans submitted are considered to give comfort that future reserved matter applications on this site would be in accordance with all Plan policies relating to the specifics of site development as listed in the policy sections above.

Access - Detailed Matter for Consideration

155. As explained above, access is the only reserved matter for consideration at this stage of the process. This requires a detailed assessment of site access arrangements and an assessment of how the proposals fit into the existing transport network. For this application Hampshire Highways and the Highways Agency are the highways authority (not EBC).

Site access Arrangements

115

156. Two vehicular accesses are proposed into the housing site. The main access is proposed from a new roundabout just north of the existing Botley Park Hotel access with a secondary access formed at Maddoxford Lane. This access would prioritise traffic through the site rather than along Maddoxford Lane. These accesses have been considered by Hampshire Highways and considered appropriate in terms of highway safety. The Winchester Road access would be constructed in advance of any occupation of any dwelling accessed from this side of the development. Likewise, the Maddoxford Lane access would be constructed in advance of any occupation of any dwelling accessed from this side of the development. An improved vehicular access to the Braxells Farm employment complex would be provided south of the main access roundabout and the existing access would be closed. The existing hotel access would be retained and improved.

157. The site access arrangements for both vehicles and sustainable transport modes have been considered by Hampshire Highways and are considered appropriate in terms of highway safety. They are therefore considered to accord with adopted plan policies T1, T2, , 102.T, and emerging policy DM23.

Traffic Impact

158. Traffic impact is one of the principal concerns relayed by local residents in their representations with particular reference to traffic impact through Botley and its associated impact upon the Air Quality Management Area. There is also concern that the application is predicated on a draft housing allocation within the new Local Plan which itself relies on evidence within the Local Plan Transport Assessment which the Council has accepted as flawed. Whilst the latter point is accepted, Members should note that this application has been submitted with its own Transport Assessment which considers the particular impacts of this proposal (together with the related proposal for 250 houses at Pylands Lane which includes the Sundays Hill Bypass).

159. Before the impacts are assessed it should be noted that the Boorley Green development is a mixed use development which inherently minimises the need to travel by providing nearby, walkable facilities and amenities. This is in accordance with national guidance and Development Plan policies and accepted by Hampshire Highways. Nevertheless the development would create additional vehicular journeys from each of the separate uses. However, it should be stated that not all occupiers of residential and non- residential development depart and arrive from a particular housing development simultaneously. A percentage might walk, cycle or catch the bus, a percentage might not leave the site that day, a percentage might travel outside peak time and a percentage might share lifts. In addition those who do make a vehicular journey will have different destinations and travel in different directions. Each of these assessments affect the prediction of how certain junctions might fare in terms of capacity and inform any decisions as to what improvements might need to be made as

116

a result of the development. The highways authority, Hampshire County Council and the Highways Agency have been consulted on this application and have interrogated the applicant’s assumptions, calculations and predictions.

160. In terms of predicted traffic impact, a forecast year of 2022 has been used. Development of this scale takes some time to build (approximately 150 houses a year for a volume housebuilder) and for the population to settle. When making forecasts the background increase in traffic is also taken into account i.e. what would have happened without the development. Existing traffic data, census data, journey purpose data, travel to work patterns and other destination patterns are also considered.

161. It should also be noted that the Transport Assessment includes an analysis of the cumulative traffic impact of development taking into account other significant proposals in neighbouring authorities i.e. North Whiteley.

162. Vehicular trip generation is usually assessed in terms of peak hours as this is when traffic has the most impact. The traffic movements at the Boorley Green site has been assessed at 827 movements (287 arrivals and 540 departures) in the morning peak hour and 877 movements (509 arrivals and 368 departures) in the evening peak hour. Approximately 45% of peak hour journeys have been assessed as for employment purposes with the remaining 55% of journeys assessed as education, shopping, leisure and personal business trips. The assessment then considers links and junctions that would experience an increase in traffic. Increases for each road are set out below:

• Winchester Road (from site to Bubb Lane junction) – 40-45% • Bubb Lane north east of Tollbar Way – 21% • Tollbar Way – 13-17% • Winchester Street (between the A334 and Woodhouse Lane junction 14%) • Maddoxford Lane south east of site access – 30% • Woodhouse Lane – 60% • Kings Copse Avenue – 30-42% • Dodwell Lane (south of SHB roundabout) – 27% • Dodwell Lane (east of M27 Junction 8) – 27%

163. Between 30-60% indicates a slight to moderate severance in communities either side of the road possibly requiring crossing points. It can be assessed that on all roads except Kings Copse Avenue, there will be no severance of communities as there are relatively few dwellings along the routes most affected. The applicant has agreed to a contribution towards a controlled pedestrian crossing point at the junction of Heath House Lane with Kings Copse Avenue and also a 30mph TRO along this route.

117

164. Specific junctions have then been modelled to assess their capacity in 2022 to deal with the increased traffic without causing unacceptable queues or delay. Improvement schemes have been proposed by the applicant on the basis of the proportion of traffic using a certain route and the capacity forecast.

165. Winchester Street/A334 – at capacity - the increase in overall traffic at the junction with the A334 in peak hours is less than 5%. This proportionate increase in traffic as a result of development, although small, warrants a contribution towards a scheme of highway works under preparation by Hampshire Highways. The applicants have agreed to this and the contribution will be secured by way of a legal agreement.

166. Winchester Street/Woodhouse Lane – approaching capacity in 2022. An improvement scheme is included to change priority between Winchester Road /Winchester Street to Winchester Road/Woodhouse Lane. This road would experience a 60% increase in traffic in peak hours and this scheme would relieve pressure on the junction. The scheme would be completed prior to the occupation of any dwellings and secured by way of a legal agreement.

167. Maypole Roundabout – sitting at the end of Woodhouse Lane (and at the end of the proposed route of the Botley by-pass) and currently at capacity, a major improvement scheme is proposed which is also the subject of this application. The scheme would be completed before the occupation of 200 dwellings and secured by way of a legal agreement.

168. Heath House Lane/Dodwell Lane – at capacity in 2022 and therefore due to the limited scope to make improvements at this junction, the presence of frontage development, the predicted background traffic increase together with possible traffic from possible future development and the TSH objective to disperse traffic more evenly between Junction 7 and Junction 8, the Sundays Hill Bypass is proposed, also the subject of this application. Policy S6 in the emerging Local Plan highlights the need for this new road whilst policy BU4 specifically seeks the delivery of the bypass as part of the development of the BU3 Pylands Lane site part funded by the Boorley Green development. The bypass is proposed to be completed before the occupation of 350 dwellings and secured by way of a legal agreement.

169. Junction 8 of M27 – sitting near the end of the Sundays Hill Bypass, it is proposed to provide contributions towards a scheme of improvement works to ensure that the impact upon the strategic road network is minimised. The Highways Agency have no objection subject to the contribution which would be secured by way of a legal agreement.

170. Hampshire Highways have considered the detail of all the proposed junction improvements and the proposed Sundays Hill Bypass including the design and layout of the bridge and have confirmed their acceptance of the proposals.

118

171. As well as the proposed improvements to the above junctions, the more immediate traffic impact upon the existing residents of Boorley Green has also been considered. The impact would be addressed by way of a financial contribution towards possible future works to Crows Nest Lane, Oatlands Road or Maddoxford Lane or a combination of all three. Their decision on these works would be made at a future date following consultation with the residents but could include the closing off one end of Crows Nest Lane or Oatlands Road or introducing a bus gate along Maddoxford Lane to stop any through traffic completely.

172. It is also important to consider pedestrian and cycle access to and from the site. Pedestrian and cycleway access points into the site would be provided alongside the vehicular accesses but also at three points along Maddoxford Lane - the first at the existing gated access to the site and the second, alongside the existing line of the public footpath into the site and a third point near the easternmost point of the site. These pedestrian accesses would link up with footpath and cycleways proposed along the site frontages and towards the improvements proposed along Winchester Road. As an integral part of the application it is proposed to upgrade the footpath along Winchester Road towards Botley. Travelling in a southerly direction an offset 3m foot/cycleway along the eastern side of Winchester road from north of the access point as far as the south-western boundary of the hotel at Braxells Lodge would be constructed. At this point, due to the narrowing of the road, the existing footway on the eastern side of the road would need to be used up to Braxells House. From here a widened 2m footway on the eastern side of the road would be provided up to the Maddoxford Lane junction where a short section of 3m foot/cycleway would lead to the dropped kerb crossing just south of the Pear Tree Inn. At this point the road would need to be crossed to a proposed 3m wide foot/cycleway narrowing to 2m on the immediate approach to the bridge narrowing again to a 1.9m element at the junction. These improvements are considered to improve the pedestrian and cycle accessibility of the site and allow genuine choice in the means of travel.

173. To further improve pedestrian/cycleway linkages, a contribution towards a controlled crossing point over Winchester Road is proposed at the point where Footpath 1 meets Winchester Road which provides a direct access to Hedge End Station. It is proposed to carry out drainage, surfacing and lighting works to upgrade this Footpath which in some places is 6 metres wide. Additional contributions are proposed towards improvements to pedestrian access along Woodhouse Lane, bridleway 6c, the permissive cycle path to the south of the railway, improvements along Winchester Road to the north of the site towards Shamblehurst Lane North or further improvements to the bus links between the site and Hedge End Station/Hedge End. These improvements would be secured through a legal agreement.

174. In terms of the bus services, it is proposed that a new twice hourly service would be provided through the site to Hedge End Station and centre for

119

the development construction period and a number of years post final occupation. Together with the existing hourly bus service this would allow 3 buses an hour serve the site making Boorley Green one of the most accessible villages in the borough. The extended time period over which it is proposed to run the service would improve the likelihood of a bus operator taking on and operating the services on a non-subsidised basis and would ensure genuine choice in the means of travel from and to the site.

Travel Plan

175. A Framework Travel Plan has been agreed with Hampshire Highways that aims to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by 10%, 5 years into development. This would be progressed through measures to promote walking and cycling including the provision of walking and cycling plans to residents and the formation of a bicycle user group. A travel voucher would be provided for every household with residents being able to choose from Bikeability training, bus or train season ticket, or a financial contribution towards a bicycle. Public transport would be promoted with the provision of bus timetable and route information. Hampshire’s car sharing scheme would also be promoted. Five car club parking spaces would be provided with guaranteed funding for a least 1 car for 5 years. Broadband access would be provided to enable easy access to local home delivery services and home working. Each resident would receive a travel information pack, a community travel website would be set up and community notice boards would include travel information. To coordinate and implement these measures, the developer would appoint a travel plan coordinator for the duration of the build and two years after. A Framework Travel Plan would also be provided for the school. To ensure the best chance of success, a bond would be taken by Hampshire Highways returned to the developer in phases once targets were reached.

176. It is considered that the all of the above measures which include the improvements to junctions, the construction of the Sundays Hill bypass, the upgrade to pedestrian/cycle routes, the financial contributions towards traffic calming and bus services and the implementation of a travel plan would address each of the transport related impacts of the development. Such measures would facilitate vehicular access but also contribute towards sustainable access patterns. This is in accordance with the NPPF guidance on sustainable development, the encouragement to find solutions which reduce congestion and to exploit opportunities for sustainable transport modes and adopted plan policies CC1, CC2, CC7, T1, T2, T5, T6, C6, S1, 100.T, 101.T, 102.T, 103.T, 152.OS, 190.IN, 191.IN, and emerging plan policies S1, S6, S7, DM1, DM23, DM37, BO1, BO3, BU3, BU4.

Other matters

The Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land

120

177. Paragraph 112 of the NPPF is clear that the presence of best and most versatile agricultural land (defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification), is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. However it is equally clear that this is not a determining factor and should be taken into account alongside other sustainability considerations.

178. The only area of land within the site that could be defined as ‘agricultural land’ is the Maddoxford Farm landholding, a small section of land to the east of the site. The remainder is in recreational use as a golf course.

179. However before the golf course was constructed, the Agricultural Land Classification map indicated that the land incorporated a mix of Grade 1 and Grade 3 quality. This classification was carried out in the 1960s/1970s and meant to give a broad overview of land quality. Natural England states that the map is to be used for strategic purposes only. A detailed survey of land quality was carried out in 1986 when the application for the golf course was submitted. The findings revealed a land quality of Grade 3 and, on this basis, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) had no objection to the construction of the golf course. The importation of material and the extensive remodelling works for the golf course are also likely to have downgraded the quality of the land and reduced any likelihood of a return to good quality agricultural use. The Natural England website alludes to the difficulty of recovering high quality land once a golf course has been constructed.

180. When alternative housing sites for inclusion with the new Local Plan were considered, a number included higher grades of agricultural land and it is evident that residential growth within Eastleigh will inevitably involve the loss of some of the best and most versatile agricultural land. This site scores better than most in terms of potential for residential development in this regard.

181. It is therefore considered that the application will not use the best and most versatile agricultural land and there is therefore no need to balance the use of this land against other sustainability considerations. .

Affordable Housing

182. In accordance with NPPF guidance at paragraph 50 which encourages a wide choice of quality homes including affordable homes, and adopted plan policies H3, 74.H and emerging plan policy DM28, a target of 35% affordable housing is sought as part of all development of this scale. A viability assessment has been carried out which confirms that development of this particular site, which would require significant physical and social infrastructure , eg new sewer infrastructure, a school, allotments, community buildings, would provide 30% affordable housing. This would equate to 420 affordable dwellings. As per the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document the tenure mix would be 65% affordable rent and 35% shared ownership. Whereas a reflective mix of

121

dwellings is usually sought, this site proposes a large number of large houses. Therefore such a mix would not meet the particular affordable housing need for smaller properties. The mix negotiated reflects both viability and the Borough’s housing need in this particular area. The provision of 420 units of affordable housing is a significant benefit that should be afforded significant weight in the consideration of the proposals. The Head of Housing and the Council’s Valuer have been involved in the negotiations with regard to viability, deliverability and affordable housing and have no objection to these proposals.

Landscape Character

183. EBC has carried out a landscape character assessment of the Borough and the Boorley Green housing site is characterised under Area 9 – Horton Heath Undulating Farmland. Its key characteristics are that it is predominantly agricultural with a gentle undulation of landform with medium sized fields, generally bounded by good hedgerows and mature hedgerow trees. Small blocks of woodland and copses are dispersed throughout the area as are water courses. In terms of visual sensitivity, tree belts and hedgerows are notable features; however the area is largely open with rural views ending in wooded horizons.

184. The application has been submitted with a detailed landscape appraisal and the Environmental Statement considers the impact upon trees and light levels. The appraisal notes that the landform on the Boorley Green housing site has been subject to extensive remodelling due to the golf course although some elements of the pre-existing landscape have been retained which support the established mature trees and hedgerows on the site. Some more recent plantations have been established on disturbed ground as part of the golf course design. On higher ground this has visual prominence but is less important from an ecological or arboricultural perspective than the older vegetation and is not part of the historic landscape character of the area. The landscape and visual impact assessment submitted identified theoretical vantage points at close quarters and up to 5km away from the site which were tested on the ground. Although parts of the site are elevated, medium and longer views towards the site from the north east and east are limited by mature vegetation around Ford Lake, together with further tree cover and hedgerows in the surrounding countryside. More distant views from higher ground are more than 1.5 Km away and would have less significance from this direction. A number of limited views and glimpses of parts of the development site have been identified and mitigation of these form part of the proposed landscape strategy. Visibility from Botley and Hedge End would be limited by existing development, intervening vegetation and the local topography. The most significant visual and landscape character impacts from the development are anticipated at close quarters from Maddoxford Lane, from the Winchester Road and from the public footpath within the site itself.

122

185. The most substantial adverse impacts on the landscape are anticipated during the construction period and subsequently the character of the area will clearly change to accommodate the level of development proposed. The landscape strategy includes the retention of important vegetation throughout the development wherever possible, reinforcing the established vegetation pattern with new planting, providing a substantial landscape setting for the built development over time, connecting the green infrastructure of the site to its surroundings, filtering and softening views from around the development and avoiding building on the most visually prominent parts of the site. The aim of the landscape strategy is to reduce the residual adverse landscape impacts to a negligible level and to offset any remaining negative impacts in the long term with new planting and the positive benefits associated with providing managed access to areas of attractive open space which have previously been closed to public access.

186. In regard to the landscape character of the Sundays Hill Bypass alignment site, its key characteristics are a mix of agricultural pasture and woodland along with small areas of suburban uses. Landform is steeply undulating from a low point on the valley floor of 23m AOD to a high point of 56m AOD near Dodwell Lane. There are substantial variations in this level especially across the centre of the site. The main impacts on the character of the landscape from the road will be the loss of more open corridor through the valley within the woodland area and the loss of the open character of the agricultural pasture. In terms of mitigation a full landscaping strategy has been proposed which incorporates new tree planting to both compensate for losses and soften views. As the landscape matures the long term has been assessed as negligible to slight adverse. Against the socioeconomic benefits of relieving traffic pressure from Junction 7 of the M27 thereby reducing delays in vehicle journeys and allowing better vehicle access to strategic routes, this is considered acceptable.

187. Light pollution has also been considered as this can have an impact upon landscape character. Paragraph 125 of the NPPF states that good design should limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation interests. A baseline survey has been carried out which indicated the hotel and street lighting as existing light sources during evening winter hours. Unsurprisingly this is indicative of a ‘rural, small village or dark urban’ location. Predicted lighting levels were then measured at both residential and ecological receptors. The conclusions pointed towards a level of light spillage both within and from the site. However with careful design, the light spillage is considered to be within acceptable limits. It is therefore recommended that should permission be granted, a conditions is attached requiring details of lighting be submitted and approved before the commencement of each phase of development.

Trees and Hedgerows

123

188. Both the housing sites and the Sundays Hill bypass site are subject to a Tree Preservation Order and the golf course, in particular retains a number of established hedgerows from its former use as agricultural land. Both trees and hedgerows are important in terms of biodiversity and paragraph 109 and 118 of the NPPF seek to protect valued landscapes, minimise development impacts upon biodiversity and refuse development which might affect ancient woodland unless the need for the development and its benefits clearly outweigh the loss. Adopted plan policies follow this aspiration at NRM5, NRM7 and 25.NC. The emerging plan policy DM9 also relates. The proposals have been prepared following a detailed tree survey and landscape assessment. The Design and Access Statements and the illustrative masterplans indicate that layouts can be achieved that seek to retain the best quality trees and hedgerows wherever possible including appropriate root protection areas. The Environmental Statement also considers the development’s impact upon trees. Some trees and hedgerows will be lost, including some trees within the ancient woodland on the Sundays Hill bypass site. The route of the bypass has been selected to minimise impacts on trees and the application is supported by proposals for mitigatory planting which extend up to five times the area of woodland that is to be lost. On the Boorley Green housing site, the majority of trees to be removed are low quality golf course trees although some good quality trees will also be removed. Again mitigatory planting is proposed. The hedgerows are mostly retained and are to be incorporated into the layout although there will be some losses.

189. The Head of Countryside and Trees has considered the proposals with great care and in liaison with Natural England has ensured the proposals incorporate sufficient mitigatory planting especially in regard to the ancient woodland on the Sundays Hill Bypass site. It is considered that the benefits of the bypass (see above in Transport section), together with the mitigatory planting outweigh the loss of the ancient woodland and subject to the replacement planting neither consultee maintains an objection to the proposals on these grounds.

190. It is considered that the reserved matters applications for landscaping will detail any mitigatory planting and therefore the detail is not for consideration at this stage. However reassurance has been provided that future reserved matters applications could achieve layouts that have an acceptable impact upon trees and hedgerows and therefore the outline planning application is acceptable in these terms and in accordance with the relevant national guidance and Development plan policies listed above.

Ecology

191. The ecological issues on both the housing site and those pertaining to the Sundays Hill Bypass alignment are numerous and a large collection of ecological reports have been submitted with the application. These reports and surveys relate to the site habitat, bats, badgers, dormice, water voles, otters, reptiles, great crested newts, winter birds, breeding

124

birds, barn owls, terrestrial invertebrates, a botanical survey and a national vegetation classification. A screening Habitats Regulations Assessment has also been completed by EBC for this application due to the location of a number of protected sites (under European legislation) nearby which could be at risk of experiencing likely significant effects as a result of the development. The screening Habitats Regulations Assessment considers whether an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is required.

192. The Boorley Green housing site and the Sundays Hill bypass site will be considered separately.

Boorley Green housing site

193. In terms of designation, six SINCs are located on or immediately adjacent to the Boorley Green site. Also the site lies immediately adjacent to a tributary of the River Hamble which forms part of the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area/RAMSAR and the Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC) approximately 2km downstream (the European sites). There is therefore a pathway linking the development to these protected sites through fluvial flows. The site is also located at 4km from the River Itchen Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the adjacent tributary of the River Hamble and forms part of a corridor for otter movement. The site also falls within the recreational catchment of the Solent and Southampton Water SPA/RAMSAR site. In addition there are also a number of notable species on the site.

194. With regard to the notable species on site the following summarises the main findings of the surveys and the proposed mitigation strategies where required:

• Badgers – these are a protected species. 15 setts were found: two active main setts; four active and four inactive subsidiary setts; one active annex sett and four inactive outlier setts. Most of the setts were found near the two main wooded areas of the site and along hedgerow areas and will be retained. However one active subsidiary sett would be lost as a result of development and three currently inactive subsidiary setts would be impacted upon by their proximity to any construction activities. Although the submitted badger survey is considered acceptable, the highly mobile nature of badgers would necessitate additional surveys being carried out nearer the time of development to ascertain an appropriate mitigation strategy. A Natural England Licence would be required if badgers are to be excluded from setts and an artificial sett may also require installation 6-12 months before the commencement of development within that area. Recommendations include conditions attached to any permission relating to future badger surveys to obtain up to date information, mitigation measures, footpaths being located at least 10m away from setts, sensitive lighting, and the incorporation of open space for foraging. During construction recommendations include removing any

125

topsoil from nearby setts, daily checking, limited night working, ramps in excavations and capping of pipes left overnight.

• Barn Owls – these are a protected species. Evidence of roosting owls was found in the area. Some buildings beyond the site boundary were not accessible to survey and although the submitted survey is considered acceptable, it is recommended that additional surveys should be carried out if development were to be approved closer to the construction period to ascertain up to date information and an appropriate mitigation strategy or the inclusion of an appropriate working zone buffer. Outside of the nesting season, it is considered that existing bird boxes are removed to ensure no nesting owls are disturbed during the construction period. To retain foraging area it is recommended that 5 ha of rough grassland is maintained. Approximately 3.5 ha is proposed through the centre of the site and along the woodland edge. Although this is below the recommended levels, there is sufficient off-site foraging for this to be considered acceptable.

• Dormice, Great Crested Newts, Otters, Water Voles, Reptiles – although none of these species were recorded it is recommended that new surveys are carried out if development does not take place within two years.

• Terrestrial invertebrates – some genuinely scarce species were found – a hoverfly, a mining bee and a longhorn beetle. Most of these species were found in the woodland areas of the site which are to be retained. It is recommended that sympathetic woodland management is a requirement of the scheme to ensure deadwood is maintained and the woodland floor does not become too shaded. It is also recommended that any grassland areas within the site are retained as far as possible and that the planting of nectar producing plants is considered.

• Breeding Birds – as expected a number of notable bird species were recorded using the site. Recommendations include the maintenance of a 15 m buffer to the woodland, planting of trees and linear landscaping features, incorporation of nesting boxes in final development, heavy construction to take place outside the bird breeding season and vegetation removal/bird box removal outside the bird nesting season to avoid disturbance.

• Botanical Survey – only two recommendations are made as a result of the survey – firstly, that a goldenrod plant is trans-located to the 15 m buffer area around the Ford Lake woodland and secondly that the protected fungi on the relevant Oak trees are maintained on site.

• Invasive Species – A 25 metre stand of Himalayan Balsam was found along Ford Lake and a stand of Japanese Knotweed opposite the junction of Crows Nest Lane which appeared to have been treated.

126

• Bats – Ten species of bats have been recorded on the site with six common pipistrelles and one long eared bat confirmed to be roosting beneath the hanging tiles of the eastern extent of the Botley Park Hotel, three common pipistrelles roosting within the residential dwelling at Braxells Farm and one common pipistrelle roosting beneath the wooden cladding of the converted barn building which is part of Braxells Farm complex. In terms of recommendations: the woodland and hedgerows should be protected as far as possible and where they cannot, the provision of continuous green corridors elsewhere; ecological input into the landscape plan; the provision of an ecological management plan; the provision of hop overs where bat habitat is severed; sensitively designed lighting; construction activity ceasing at sunset; the public deterred from using the woodland; information about cat predation to occupiers and provision of bat boxes, bricks etc.

195. All bat species are listed under Annex IV to the EU Habitats Directive (and referred to as European protected species). They are protected by the provisions of Article 12 of the directive against deliberate killing, disturbance or deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places. Article 16 of the Directive allows derogation from the provisions of Article 12 for a number of reasons including imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. The Habitats Directive is transposed into UK legislation by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, commonly referred to as the Habitats Regulations. The provisions of article 12 are secured by Regulation 41, of which paragraph 1 makes it an offence to:

• 1(a) deliberately capture injure or kill any wild animal of a European protected species; • 1(b) deliberately disturb wild animals of any such species; and • 1(d) to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal.

196. Paragraph 2 clarifies that for the purpose of para 1(b), disturbance includes in particular any disturbance which is likely (a) to impair their ability — . (i) to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young, or (ii) in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or (b) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong.

197. The provision for derogation set out in Article 16 of the Habitats Directive are transposed by a licensing regime as set out in Regulation 53 of the Habitats regulations, whereby Natural England may grant a licence for an

127

activity which would otherwise be unlawful. In considering whether to grant a European Protected Species (EPS) licence in connection with development, Natural England must consider the three tests set out in sub-paragraphs (2)(e), (9)(a) and (9)(b)

(1) Regulation 53(2)(e) states: a licence can be granted for the purposes of “preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment”.

(2) Regulation 53(9)(a) states: the appropriate authority shall not grant a licence unless they are satisfied “that there is no satisfactory alternative”.

(3) Regulation 53(9)(b) states: the appropriate authority shall not grant a licence unless they are satisfied “that the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.”

198. In considering the implications for the application on bats, the Council must first decide whether an offence would be committed as described in Regulation 41, and then consider whether a licence would be granted under the provisions of Regulation 53.

199. The roosts at Botley Park Hotel and Braxells Farm will be affected by the development, and on the basis of the information provided, it is considered that an offence would be committed under paragraph (1)(d) of section 41 of the Habitats Regulations, and therefore an EPS licence would be required. The Council must therefore consider whether a licence is likely to be issued for the operations which will take place in connection with the development, taking into account the three tests set out above:

1) Regulation 53(2)(e): “A licence can be granted for……..imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature”. In terms of meeting the first test, the proposal at Braxells Farm would deliver much needed employment floorspace as part of a wider mixed use development of 1400 open market and affordable homes alongside open space. There is a recognised shortfall in both market and affordable housing and open space provision in Botley parish. There is an identified need for employment provision throughout Eastleigh Borough and this is reflected in the draft Local Plan policy ensuring the allocation of employment space on this site.

2) Regulation 53(9)(a): “The appropriate authority shall not grant a licence unless they are satisfied “that there is no satisfactory alternative”. In terms of meeting this second test, it is considered that there is no satisfactory alternative to extending the hotel and employment facilities alongside the provision of housing on the wider site. To provide employment facilities or extended hotel recreational, function/conferencing

128

opportunities elsewhere would reduce the sustainability credentials of the overall development

• Mitigation should be proportionate. The level of mitigation required depends on the size and type of impact, and the importance of the population affected. • Plans should be based on adequate knowledge. Sound survey, site assessment and impact assessment is required. The plan should take each predicted impact and address how it can be avoided, lessened and/or compensated for. • Mitigation should aim to address the characteristics picked up by the site assessment, in terms of quantity, quality and function. • Preparing an appropriate replacement site (or sites) may require considerable time and effort, i.e. work may be required in advance of development so that its effectiveness can be assessed, and mitigation plans should address the impacts of all phases in phased developments. • The long-term security of the population should be assured, i.e. proposals should be secured by conditions or planning obligations.

200. In terms of the third test, without mitigation the impact would entail a loss of summer transitional roosts for males or non-breeding females of common pipistrelle or long-eared bats. The loss of such roosts is unlikely to be significant in terms of the retention of favourable conservation status of either species. However mitigation is proposed in the form of two bat boxes at Braxells Farm and six bat boxes at Botley Park Hotel situated pre-construction and retained in the long term on nearby trees. Access points within the buildings would be kept open during construction. It is therefore considered that it is likely that an EPS licence would be granted for the works

201. The international/ European designated sites (SAC/SPA/RAMSAR) lie 2km south of the development site and are linked to it by the tributary of the river Hamble that forms the eastern boundary of the site. The features of interest of the RAMSAR site are substantially the same as those of the SPA, i.e. intertidal habitats and adjacent habitats and adjacent wetlands, and bird species which they support, and the planning policy framework applying to European sites also applies to RAMSAR sites. A Habitats Regulations Assessment of the application has been carried out by EBC. Possible effects assessed both during the construction period and the operational period include the introduction or spread of invasive species, the impact upon air and water quality, the impact upon otters and otter habitat, the impact of recreational pressure upon protected habitats, and the associated disturbance to birds using nearby coastal areas. In

129

combination effects including an assessment of the combined impact of other plans and policies have also been considered in relation to recreational pressure and air quality. The assessment concludes that the proposals, with embedded and additional mitigation, conditions and relevant financial contributions are not likely to adversely affect the integrity of the European sites either alone or in combination with any other plans or projects. Therefore, subject to formal consultation with Natural England it is considered that the application does not require an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ under the Regulations.

Sundays Hill bypass

202. The bypass crosses Pilands Copse, designated as a SINC due to its high content of ancient woodland. The bypass is also 130m west of Upper Hamble Estuary and Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Manor Farm Local Nature Reserve. Many features of interest within the SSSI are also found within the SINC. Pilands Stream flows through the ancient woodland towards the River Hamble which is 1.2 km away which forms part of the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area/RAMSAR, the Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation. In addition there are a number of notable and protected species on the alignment of the road.

International/ European designated sites (RAMSAR/ SPA/ SAC)

203. A Habitat Regulations Assessment has been carried out by the Council, and potential effects of the Sundays Hill Bypass which have been assessed both during the construction period and the operational period are the introduction or spread of invasive species, the impact upon air and water quality, the impact upon otter passage beneath the bypass and otter habitats. The assessment concludes that the proposals, with embedded mitigation and conditions, are not likely to have any significant adverse effects upon the integrity of the nearby European sites (SCA/SPA) either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, and an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ under the Regulations is not required.

Loss of part of ancient woodland/ SINC

204. Paragraph 118 of the NPPF promotes the preservation and enhancement of biodiversity, and advises that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland, should be refused unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss. Natural England have been particularly concerned with regards to the loss of irreplaceable ancient woodland as part of the Sundays Hill Bypass proposal, specifically that the application had not provided evidence that all alternatives had been considered, and therefore that the Council could not, demonstrate that there is an overriding reason for granting permission. Information has subsequently been provided (options appraisal) which justifies the need and sets out all the alternatives for the route, such that Natural England have confirmed

130

(informally) that the Council can now show that it has considered the need for the development and rejected other options for its alignment and construction on a reasonable basis.

205. In assessing the various options, the Council must have regard to Natural England’s standing advice on ancient woodland which in summary is that where development would affect ancient woodland, the impact should be avoided or reduced by pursuing other options or through mitigation, but where the benefit of the development outweighs the remaining adverse effects on the site, permission may be granted as long as suitable compensation for the remaining impacts can be secured.

206. Policy 23.NC of the adopted Local Plan Review states that, “Development which is likely to have a direct or indirect adverse affect on a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) will not be permitted, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Borough Council that the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the need to safeguard the nature conservation value of the site. If development is to be permitted, the Council will require appropriate measures to be taken to mitigate for the adverse effects on the SINC.”

207. Policy DM9 of the latest draft of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 – 2029 states that, “Development will not be permitted which is likely to have a direct or indirect adverse effect on a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC)…. unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Borough Council that: • i. the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the adverse effects on the nature conservation value of the site, • ii. the adverse impacts are unavoidable; and • iii. measures can be taken to mitigate or compensate for the adverse effects.” The effect of these policies is the same as that of Natural England’s standing advice.

208. In this case, the potential impact of the development is reduced by:

• Use of a single span bridge to carry the Sundays Hill Bypass across Pylands Copse and the Pylands stream, which has a much smaller construction footprint than cut-and-fill or other construction options, and will maintain a corridor of relatively undisturbed woodland habitat beneath the bridge to maintain connectivity of habitat and movement for species using the woodland, including protected species (see below). • Provision for on-going management of the remaining woodland to enhance its value for nature conservation

209. The residual impact - loss of 0.24ha of ancient woodland, part of which will actually be retained and restored beneath the bridge span - is therefore unavoidable. Compensation for this impact is proposed through the planting 1.30ha of woodland adjacent to Pilands Copse on the north and

131

south side, partly on the site of ancient woodland cleared around 40 years ago, and other planting to improve the connectivity between Pilands Copse and the larger areas of ancient woodland within Manor Farm Country Park to the east. Subject to the inclusion of the additional planting referred to above, this represents sufficient compensation, and Natural England have indicated informally and will confirm in writing that this amounts to the “very substantial package of woodland planting” which in their initial comments on this application they stated would be expected as a condition of any permission if granted.

Protected Species

210. These species are summarised below together with the mitigation required where an impact is likely:

• Aquatic invertebrates – some stonefly larvae were found and recommendations include minimising any siltation to the stream and measures to avoid run off pollution of the stream and enhancing habitat through careful removal of some stream bed silt to deepen the channel

• Badgers – One active outlier sett lies in the path of the road. If it remains active by the time of construction, a licence will be required for the exclusion of badgers from the sett and an artificial sett may also be required. It is recommended that badger underpasses and fencing are incorporated into the design of the bridge, sensitive lighting of the road, construction topsoil is placed away from badger setts and checked every day, that night working is kept to a minimum, that earth ramps are left overnight in any excavations and pipes left overnight are capped.

• Barn Owls – Although a nearby resident has stated barn owls are present in the area, none were found during surveys of the whole site. If barn owls were present they would not be directly affected by the construction of the bypass alone through a loss of nests or a significant loss of habitat.

• Breeding birds – A number of notable species of birds were identified within the site, some of which may use areas on the alignment of the bypass, but in itself, the road would not have a significant impact upon them. The construction of the bypass will involve the removal of some trees and other vegetation therefore recommendations include vegetation removal and construction to take place outside nesting season or with ecological supervision and mitigatory tree planting.

• Dormice, great crested newts, honey buzzards and notable winter birds– none recorded but as a precaution, new surveys are recommended if development does not take place within two years.

132

• Terrestrial Invertebrates – seven nationally scarce or threatened species of beetles, flies and wasps were found in locations on the alignment of the bypass and recommendations include retention and management of key plant species and habitat features elsewhere on the site to support these species.

• Botanical Survey - stands of Japanese Knotweed and Giant Hogweed were recorded in the centre of the site. Recommendations include the employment of a specialist contractor to remove both.

• Reptile Survey – Surveys found low numbers of slow worms in locations on the alignment of the bypass which will need to be trans- located. Receptor sites have been identified within the northwest and northeast fringes of the site (1ha in total) whilst HCC have agreed in principle to a 4ha receptor site within the country park. This would be subject to an ecological management and maintenance plan, together with a commuted sum for the management of these areas.

• Bats – 3-4 species of bat were recorded using Pilands Copse, of which two are categorised as “common” in England, and the other one/ two as “rarer”. (The two “rarer” species are difficult to distinguish on the basis of call alone.) In addition it has been accepted that the brown long-eared bat, another “common” species which is hard to detect is likely to be present. It has also been suggested that Bechstein’s bat, which is included in the “rarest” category in England and also hard to detect, might be present. This cannot be ruled out, but is thought to be unlikely based on its habitat preferences. The value for bats of Pilands Copse is considered to be of County level, but at the lower end of this range.

211. All bat species are listed under Annex IV to the EU Habitats Directive (and referred to as European protected species). They are protected by the provisions of Article 12 of the directive against deliberate killing, disturbance or deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places. Article 16 of the Directive allows derogation from the provisions of Article 12 for a number of reasons including imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. The Habitats Directive is transposed into UK legislation by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, commonly referred to as the Habitats Regulations. The provisions of Article 12 are secured by Regulation 41, of which paragraph 1 makes it an offence to: • 1(a) deliberately capture injure or kill any wild animal of a European protected species; • 1(b) deliberately disturb wild animals of any such species; and • 1(d) to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal.

133

212. Paragraph 2 clarifies that for the purpose of para 1(b), disturbance includes in particular any disturbance which is likely (a) to impair their ability — . (ii) to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young, or (ii) in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or (b) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong.

213. The provision for derogation set out in Article 16 of the Habitats Directive are transposed by a licensing regime as set out in Regulation 53 of the Habitats regulations, whereby Natural England may grant a licence for an activity which would otherwise be unlawful. In considering whether to grant a licence in connection with development, Natural England must consider the three tests set out in sub-paragraphs (2)(e), (9)(a) and (9)(b)

(2) Regulation 53(9)(a) states: the appropriate authority shall not grant a licence unless they are satisfied “that there is no satisfactory alternative”.

214. In considering the implications for the application on bats, the Council must first decide whether an offence would be committed as described in Regulation 41, and then consider whether a licence would be granted under the provisions of Regulation 53. The impact/ effects of the bypass development on bats can be summarised as being:

a) The potential for bats to be harmed during the felling of trees; b) The clearance of a strip of woodland 22m wide/ 0.24ha in extent running north to south through the wood, reducing the total amount of foraging habitat within and adjacent to the wood available to bats; c) The creation of a gap in the woodland which bats might not cross, resulting in the possible separation of any roosts to the west of the road from foraging habitat to the east, and further reducing the area of foraging habitat available to bats using roosts to the east of the road, including within Manor Farm Country Park; d) The presence of the road leading to the possibility of bats being injured or killed by collisions with vehicles using the road; and

134

e) The felling of at least four trees assessed as having high potential for roosting bats, one of which was found to contain a transitional roost used by noctule bats.

215. In assessing whether an offence under Regulation 41 is likely to be committed, recent case law has confirmed that destruction of a potential roost site (i.e. a tree of high potential for bats but where no roosts have been found) is not an offence under paragraph 1(d), but some cases have suggested that courts will accept that a proven roost site remains a roost even when bats are not present at the time of a pre-works inspection, so it is considered that the loss of the transitional Noctule bat roost would be an offence. Regarding the paragraph 1(a) offence of deliberate injury or killing, although the risk of an offence being committed during site clearance is significantly reduced by the proposed method for felling trees of high bat potential; the bridge/ road design does not eliminate the possibility of bats being killed or injured in collision with vehicles, so it is considered that it is likely that this offence could occur. Regarding the paragraph 1(b) offence of deliberate disturbance, it is considered that this could also occur, e.g. as a consequence of reducing the amount of foraging habitat available to bats using roosts to the west of the new road

216. The Council must therefore consider whether a licence is likely to be issued for the operations which will take place in connection with the development, taking into account the three tests set out above

1) Regulation 53(2)(e): “A licence can be granted for……..imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature”. Significant need for housing, in particular affordable housing, has been identified in preparation of the draft local plan, and the Sundays Hill Bypass would facilitate developments providing several hundred new affordable homes as well as associated education, recreation and health facilities, and based on guidance provided by Natural England it is considered likely that these benefits would satisfy this test. Also, the need for improved highway access to junction 8 of the M27 has been identified through a study of the whole of the M27 corridor, i.e. at above/ wider than District scale, placing its significance on a par with that of the value of the bat habitats on the site.

2) Regulation 53(9)(a): “The appropriate authority shall not grant a licence unless they are satisfied “that there is no satisfactory alternative”. The applicant has provided an options appraisal in relation to the need for the Sundays Hill Bypass, which sets out options for improving access onto the M27 at junction 7 (which have also been considered through the local plan process), other options for improving access at junction eight, and options for the alignment and construction of the road through Pilands Copse. Alternative options have therefore been considered and it can be demonstrated that a number of options have been considered and those that have been rejected have been rejected for good reasons. Therefore it is considered unlikely that a licence would not be granted in relation to this test.

135

3) Regulation 53(9)(b): “the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.” The general principles set out in Natural England’s Bat Mitigation guidelines are applied to licence applications, and include: • Mitigation should be proportionate. The level of mitigation required depends on the size and type of impact, and the importance of the population affected. • Plans should be based on adequate knowledge. Sound survey, site assessment and impact assessment is required. The plan should take each predicted impact and address how it can be avoided, lessened and/or compensated for. • Mitigation should aim to address the characteristics picked up by the site assessment, in terms of quantity, quality and function. • Preparing an appropriate replacement site (or sites) may require considerable time and effort, i.e. work may be required in advance of development so that its effectiveness can be assessed, and mitigation plans should address the impacts of all phases in phased developments. • The long-term security of the population should be assured, i.e. proposals should be secured by conditions or planning obligations.

217. The main mitigation and compensations measures proposed can be assessed to consider whether they address each of the impacts in line with these principles.

a) Potential harm to bats during tree felling – the proposed methods and timing for felling should minimise this risk and will be secured by condition/ planning obligation. b) Reduction in the total amount of foraging habitat available. - It is proposed to plant approximately five times the area of woodland to be lost, hence over time the area of foraging habitat will be increased, but given that this will take a significant time to establish, planting should take place at a very early stage in the development or even prior to commencement. The existing and new woodland will be transferred into public ownership enabling them to be managed to benefit bats in the long term c) Creation of a gap in the woodland which bats might not cross, affecting access to foraging habitat. - The construction and design of the bridge with a large space beneath it, and proposed planting to create “hop-overs” will mitigate the severance of the woodland to some extent, and it has been agreed that the road will not be lit where it passes through the woodland, although there is likely to be some residual effect. The proposed new planting will also mitigate this to some degree by providing new foraging habitat on both sides of the road. d) The possibility of bats being injured or killed by collisions with vehicles using the road - The large space beneath the bridge and associated planting will enable bats to pass beneath the road, and

136

at height above it, and the proposed 1.75m high parapets will discourage bats from flying above the road at a height where collisions might occur, but the risk cannot be eliminated. e) The felling of trees assessed as having high potential for roosting bats including one transitional roost used by noctule bats - It is proposed to provide 20 new bat boxes within the woodland suitable for a range of species, including three intended to replace the lost noctule roost, which should be erected as far as possible in advance of the removal of this roost, and should compensate for the loss of other trees of high roosting potential.

218. As proposed these measures provide significant mitigation and compensation, but Natural England have informally advised that because the presence of Bechstein’s bat cannot be ruled out, and because of the overall significance of the bat population and impact upon it, the mitigation and compensation measures relating to the site as a whole should be sufficient to demonstrate a clear enhancement for the bat populations using the site and the surrounding area in order to satisfy the third test, but they do not do so at present. It is therefore considered that at present it is unlikely that a licence would be granted for the operations required in connection with the development, and permission should not be granted until further mitigation/ compensation is agreed. Further compensation measures have been discussed informally with Natural England and the applicant as follows:

• Further planting to restore a woodland corridor connecting Pilands Copse to the woodlands within Manor Farm Country Park; • Increased planting to improve the flight line between the trees with high bat roost potential on “The Knoll” to Pilands Copse; • Provision of purpose-made features suitable for crevice roosting bat species on dwellings adjacent to the retained woodland and buffer strips; • Provision of bat lofts in the roof space of two or three buildings where these are located adjacent to open spaces connected to Pilands Copse. Flatted buildings or others where the roof/ loft space is not owned by a single occupier would be most suitable, but such roosting features can be incorporated into many smaller buildings. • Habitat enhancements for bats within Manor Farm Country Park to be funded by a financial contribution. (Details of the works will be confirmed based on the results of a comprehensive bat survey of the woodlands in Manor Farm Country Park also to be funded by a financial contribution, but which does not in itself form part of the mitigation).

219. A comprehensive overall package of all mitigation/ compensation measures should be set out as an appendix to the updated bat activity report submitted by the applicant in order that it can be readily referred to and secured by conditions and through the s106 agreement. This should satisfy the requirements of the third test and enable Natural England to issue a European Protected Species licence. Subject to such a

137

comprehensive mitigation and compensation plan being secured through relevant conditions and the s106 agreement, it is possible to conclude that it is unlikely that a European Protected Species Licence would not be granted, and planning permission could therefore be granted.

220. Overall, with the various mitigation and compensation strategies proposed for the loss of ancient woodland, for the disturbance to known protected species, for the spread of invasive species, for the impact upon water quality, otters and to address the impact of increased recreational pressure on European sites, the proposals are considered to accord with the NPPF paragraph 118-120 and adopted plan policies CC1, NRM2, NRM5, NRM7, NRM9, 22.NC, 23.NC, 25. NC, 20.NC, 39.ES, S1 and emerging plan policy DM9 together with the requirement for assessment under other legislation.

Noise

221. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF states that decisions should avoid significant adverse noise impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development, impacts should be mitigated where possible, and that there should be a recognition that development will often create some noise. The Explanatory Note to the Noise Policy Statement for England defines significant adverse impacts. The Noise Insulation Regulations provide criteria for assessing the eligibility for noise mitigation grants based on variations in traffic noise due to a new or improved road scheme. A detailed noise assessment was carried out by the applicants and the EBC Environmental Health Officer was consulted.

222. The main findings of the report were that construction noise would require mitigation and that there were certain properties which could be affected by increased traffic noise sufficiently adversely to qualify for noise mitigation measures under the Noise Insulation Regulations. These properties are located along the route of the Sundays Hill Bypass. The applicants have agreed to fund these measures if further noise studies carried out as part of the reserved matters applications indicate a problem. A number of properties within the western section of Heath House Lane and Dodwell Lane would experience a decrease in noise levels. Other properties will experience variable changes in noise levels but not to an extent that the impact upon health or amenity would be unacceptable in policy terms.

223. Measures to mitigate noise are controlled either by the fact that further consideration would be required as part of reserved matters applications when assessing site layout or through the recommended condition for a construction management plan. The Head of Housing and Environmental Health has considered the proposals very carefully, interrogated the noise survey, requested further information and clarification on certain points but is now satisfied that subject to the recommended conditions the noise impact of the proposals will be acceptable. The application is therefore considered in accordance with national guidance and adopted plan

138

policies NRM10, 30.ES, 31.ES, and emerging plan policies DM1 and DM7 and acceptable in noise terms.

Air Quality

224. The NPPF states that policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards national objectives for pollutants, taking into account Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites. Adopted plan policies NRM9, 32.ES, 33.ES and emerging plan policy DM7 require any impacts upon air quality to be assessed in this regard. There are also a number of European Directives that apply to air quality which the Air Quality Standards Regulations (2010) seeks to transpose and simplify.

225. The application has been submitted with an air quality assessment and Environmental Statement which considers the impact of the development upon air quality at various receptors. Both the construction and operation phase were considered as well as various forms of air quality pollutants. In particular, NO2 and particulates were considered from increased level of traffic, construction activities and the emissions from the proposed energy centre.

226. With regard to traffic emissions EBC has designated two Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) in regard of NO2 emissions within 1.5km of the Boorley Green Housing Site and the Sundays Hill Bypass site. These are the Hamble Lane AQMA and the Botley High Street AQMA. It is the predicted changes to air quality at these receptors as a result of traffic increase which have been considered in the air quality assessment.

227. The air quality assessment concludes that at all receptors, following the adoption of the recommended mitigation measures, the development would not be considered contrary to any national or local Development Plan policies, and would not exceed the levels required by Air Quality Objectives. Furthermore the proposals would have the following benefits: a decrease in annual mean NO2 concentrations along Heath House Lane (west of the junction with the Sundays Hill Bypass), along the M27 corridor north of Junction 7 to south of Junction 8, along the A334 (west of Junction 7, along Maunsell Way and along the A27, south of the Windhover roundabout) and a decrease in particulate concentrations along Maunsell Way and along the A27, south of the Windhover roundabout.

228. With specific regard to air quality the Council’s Environmental Health Officer states that air quality impacts are not anticipated as modelling has shown little impact upon the Botley AQMA, as the majority (60%) of vehicle movements are expected west on Woodhouse Lane , north along Winchester Road. However Hampshire Highways have required a contribution towards their junction improvement scheme at Winchester Street/Botley High Street which may well improve air quality through the reduction in traffic queuing. It is likely that areas to the north into Fair Oak and Horton will experience increasing traffic and worsening air quality and

139

on this basis a contribution is sought towards EBC’s air quality strategy work / monitoring and assessment in the area. This contribution would be secured as part of the Section 106 agreement.

229. Many of the recommended mitigation measures for the operational phase of development are embodied within the proposals in terms of the locations of particular land uses, the position of the site accesses, the measures to improve sustainable travel options to nearby facilities and the measures proposed to reduce car journeys within the Travel Plan.

230. For the construction phase, the air quality assessment details a number of mitigation measures which could be controlled through the use of a condition requiring the approval of a Construction Management Plan. Such a plan would include measures such as barriers being erected, no bonfires, proper training for all site personnel, wheel washing, construction vehicle routeing, hard surfaced haul routes and dust suppression methods.

231. In air quality terms, the submitted assessments indicate that a mixed use development of 1400 houses and the Sundays Hill Bypass could, in principle, be accommodated in the particular locations proposed without significant detriment to human health in terms of air quality subject to the required mitigation measures. The application is therefore in accordance with the NPPF, adopted Development Plan policies NRM9, 32.ES, 33.ES and emerging plan policy DM7.

Sustainability

232. NPPF guidance at paragraphs 95-99, adopted plan policies CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4, 34.ES, 37.ES, 38.ES, and emerging plan policies S1, DM2 and DM3 require development to be sustainable in terms of resource use, climate change, energy use. The adopted Supplementary Planning Document Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD SPD) gives more specific guidance on requirements. The NPPF embodies sustainability in all its policies. 233. The Environment Statement also considered sustainability in terms of energy use and states that the completed development will generate a significant demand for energy in the form of heating, cooling and power and that any use of fossil fuels to generate this energy requirement will therefore have an impact upon climate change. The scale of development dictates that an effective strategy is required in order to reduce energy demand where possible and that supply solutions are, where possible, renewable and sustainable. It concludes that the development is likely to meet the requirements of the Development Plan and the emerging plan.

234. In relation to energy use, the ESD SPD relates to carbon emission reductions and low and zero-carbon (LZC) energy generation which take precedence unless superseded by the policies in the emerging Local Plan. Under the SPD there is a requirement to achieve a 15% reduction in CO2 through the use of LZC generation for the residential elements. This is repeated in the emerging plan. Simultaneously the residential

140

development is required to meet Code 4 under the Code for Sustainable Homes, which in energy terms, means that a 25% reduction in carbon emissions (assessed against the 2010 Building Regulations) is mandatory. This requirement increases to Code 5 for any reserved matter applications permitted after January 2016 (100% reduction against Building Regulations). The non-residential elements are required to achieve a 20% reduction in regulated Co2 emissions through the use of LZC technologies and must also meet a BREEAM ‘Excellent’ score for all reserved matter applications which requires a 25% reduction (assessed against Building Regulations 2010). The application has been made in outline and therefore sufficient detail is not available as yet to understand what combination of building fabric improvement and LZC technologies might be employed. However it is expected that the lower density residential element would make use of a combination of fabric improvements and technologies such as photovoltaic panels whilst it is possible that the non- residential uses could make use of decentralised energy technologies. Whichever methods are used, the energy report offers reassurance that the development will meet national standards and the emerging plan requirements for any applications submitted prior to 2016. A planning condition will ensure these standards are met.

235. In terms of other aspects of sustainability eg, water use, materials, surface water runoff, waste pollution, health and wellbeing, management and ecology, the ESD SPD contains a number of essential requirements for development including meeting standards contained under other measurements eg BREEAM, Code for Sustainable Homes. The emerging plan also contains a requirement for the development to be assessed under the new BREEAM Communities standard. This is a standard which allows the measurement and certification of a development at a neighbourhood scale.

236. EBC’s Sustainability Officer has been consulted and has no objections to either the Energy Statement or the Sustainability Report which clearly demonstrate that the development is able to achieve the requirements set out in both the Environmentally Sustainable Development SPD and the emerging Local Plan policies and also that a development can achieve a BREEAM Communities ‘excellent’ standard.

237. The proposals are therefore considered to accord with all of the above listed policies.

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

238. The NPPF states that those parts of the historic environment that have significance because of their historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest are heritage assets; that they require assessment and are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. Opportunities to capture evidence from the historic environment must be taken. Adopted plan policies BE6, 168.LB, and emerging plan policies DM1, DM7 apply. Detailed archaeological assessments of both sites were carried out,

141

including records of previous finds and the archaeological potential on both was assessed as generally low except for Prehistoric and Romano- British periods for which the sites were assessed as low to medium and medium to high respectively. As the proposals are likely therefore to have an impact upon archaeology it is recommended that further assessment is carried out which will inform a mitigation strategy. Assessment may include trial trenching, the results of which will inform the mitigation strategy. If the results warrant further assessment, this may include stripping of certain areas of the sites, mapping and recording of any finds and public dissemination and interpretation of information. If the results indicate less significant interest, a watching brief may be more appropriate. The archaeological officer at Hampshire County Council has been consulted and has recommended a condition to ensure that no development takes place without a programme of archaeological evaluation and mitigation having been approved. This ties in with the Environmental Statement which also recommends conditions to ensure any impact upon archaeology is small. Such a condition will ensure that the aims of national guidance and Development Plan policies are met. In archaeology terms, the application is therefore considered acceptable in terms of heritage asset protection.

239. Although the site does not contain any Scheduled Monuments, is not located within a conservation area and does not contain any listed buildings, there are a number of listed buildings around both the Boorley Green Housing Site and the Sundays Hill bypass. However the separation from these buildings through either distance or vegetation makes the impact of the proposals upon their character and setting minimal.

Flood Risk and surface water drainage

240. A detailed flood risk assessment has been submitted as it is known that some areas both on and off the site are vulnerable to flooding. The majority of the site lies within Flood Risk Zone 1 where the probability of flooding is low. However the valley floor of Ford Lake lies within Flood Risk zone 2 and 3 where the probability of flooding is higher. Development is not proposed within these areas.

241. The surface water strategy takes into account the geological properties of the site and the function of slope. The aim is to ensure that there is no increased risk in flooding due to surface water run off. This means that the run-off calculations for the proposed development must equal or better the existing run off rates. Due to soil conditions it is unlikely that soakaways would offer a sustainable drainage solution. Therefore it is proposed that maximum use is made of permeable pavements, permeable road surfacing (in agreement with HCC as the highways authority) and open spaces. Source control is also proposed through green roofs and rainwater harvesting. For conveyance, the primary means would be roadside swales and the illustrative plan takes account of this. Existing ditches would be retained as far as possible to naturalise the development into the landscape in surface water drainage terms. The detailed approval of a

142

comprehensive Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) is recommended as a condition. However in principle it is considered that the surface water drainage could be accommodated to ensure no increase in run-off from the site above existing levels. The Environment Agency have been consulted on this aspect and, subject to the recommended conditions, have no objection to the proposals.

242. As expected the Flood Risk Assessment and the Environmental Statement demonstrate and conclude that the areas of the site proposed for housing are at low risk of flooding and with mitigation would not increase flood risk to surrounding areas.

243. The development is therefore in accordance with NPPF Para 100, and adopted plan policies CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4, CC7, CC8, NRM2, NRM4, 32.ES, 41.ES, 42. ES, 43.ES, 45.ES, 190.IN, and emerging plan policies S1, S5, DM1-DM7

Utility assessment (including foul sewerage)

244. In terms of the foul water strategy, it is known that there is currently inadequate capacity in the existing foul sewerage system for this development and the Environmental Statement recognises that without mitigation, the environmental impact of development would be major. The applicants have been aware of this fact from an early stage and have been in discussions with Southern Water for some time. Stage 1 of the requisition process has been completed and it has been agreed with Southern Water that foul drainage would be supplied by means of a number of pumping stations on the site and a new sewer from the site to the nearest point within the sewerage network with capacity (approximately 10km distant). An early interim proposal could possibly include connection of the first 150 dwellings to the existing sewer in Crows Nest Lane. The cost of these proposals is considered in the viability/contribution paragraph below. Southern Water have no objection to these proposals subject to the approval of the detail of the strategy.

245. In consultation carried out with the utility providers, it has been established that a water supply, electricity supply and gas supply can all be provided to the scheme. This is in accordance with adopted plan policies CC7, 64BE, 190.IN and emerging plan policy DM37.

Third Party Representation ( if not dealt with above)

246. Inadequate public consultation period - Since the end of September, local residents have been consulted three times on the application for a period of 21 days each.

247. No Botley bypass – In the emerging plan, the Botley bypass is proposed to be built as three interlinked elements. The first would be a distributor road through the proposed 300 house allocation north of Botley linking to an upgrade along Woodhouse Lane southwards to the Maypole roundabout.

143

Although not currently considered to be essential by Hampshire Highways, it is an aspiration of this Council for both highway and air quality reasons. It is proposed to be brought forward through development itself and by the collection of contributions from development over the next plan period. This is not affected by the withdrawal of the Woodhouse Lane site. The junction improvements at Woodhouse Lane/Winchester Road are an integral element of the bypass as is the major upgrade to the Maypole roundabout included within this application which would form the ‘landing’ area for the the Botley by pass.

248. One part of the new plan has been removed so whole strategy should fail – the viability of the Boorley Green housing site is not threatened by the removal of the Woodhouse Lane site. If this were the case, the application would have likely been withdrawn. EBC’s Valuer has been involved closely in the consideration of viability and therefore deliverability.

249. Electricity Estimations - There is no objection from the electricity supplier in terms of providing an electricity supply to the proposed development. Further detail is required to be provided under a planning condition.

250. Lack of school places - Hampshire Children’s Services has a requirement for a two form entry primary school within the site and contributions under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 towards secondary school places. This has been agreed by the applicants

251. Lack of health infrastructure - The applicants have agreed a financial contribution towards an extension to Botley surgery.

252. Impact on Botley businesses - It is considered that a larger population within the area will have a good impact upon the shops and businesses in Botley. With regard to the small shop within the development, an analysis has indicated sufficient capacity to support both the Botley shops and the shop within the development.

253. Size of buffer zone reduced - This relates to the buffer planting to the rear of the properties in Maddoxford Lane originally proposed as 10m wide. To allow the required size for the allotments, this has been reduced to 5m in width. 5m is considered to be more than sufficient to provide a buffer between the two land uses.

254. Location of allotments - This relates to the allotments to the rear of the properties within Maddoxford Lane/Orchard Close. The ‘green swathe’ of open space/ allotments/community orchards was a requirement to ensure space between the existing and new properties. Minimum separation distances of 20 metres were not considered sufficient and therefore this was doubled to approximately 40 metres to reduce impact upon existing residents. The allotments would be subject to regulation by either EBC or Botley Parish Council and are considered an even more appropriate neighbouring use than public open space which can sometimes be noisy

144

and whose use is unregulated. Further consultation on this point will be considered at detailed application stage.

255. Height of houses behind property - Again this relates to the height of the dwellings proposed behind existing properties in Maddoxford Lane. The Design and Access Statement gives a guideline of dwelling heights in this area between 1.5 and 2.5 storeys in height with the parameter plans suggesting a maximum of 2.5 storeys. Reserved matter applications will provide certainty as to maximum height and residents will have the opportunity to make their views known at this stage.

256. Privacy - As above a minimum separation distance to protect privacy is 20 metres. The separation distances are between 40 and 150 metres in this instance.

257. Viability - The costs of the development include such factors as the price of the land, utility provision, the level of affordable housing and developer’s contributions. With the known costs of development, the applicant remains willing to develop the land and the Council’s Valuer has confirmed that site is viable.

258. Credibility of Bream Statement - The sustainability officer has interrogated the energy and BREAM statements and has recommended planning conditions to ensure the required standards are met.

Stakeholder Engagement

259. Against the background of considerable community reservation about the principle of developing the site, the applicant has carried out a community consultation exercise consisting of meetings with the hotel, meetings with the golf club, planning workshops with the local community, meetings with the parish council, local action group and statutory consultees. At each stage changes have been made to an evolving plan indicating genuine engagement. Paragraph 66 of the NPPF expects developers to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community. The NPPF goes on to state that “Proposals that can demonstrate this in developing the design of the new development should be looked upon more favourably”. Although the applicants have made good efforts to engage, full compliance with this criteria is difficult with this particular application with such a high level of ‘in principle’ objection from the local community. However the applicants have stated within their Statement of Community Involvement that if the application were to be granted planning permission, the community engagement would continue throughout the detailed design stage.

Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990/CIL Regulations 2010L - Developers Contributions and Viability

260. In accordance with all the above mentioned adopted development plan policies and specifically CC7, 191.IN, the emerging plan policy DM37, the

145

Council’s Planning Obligations SPD, Affordable Housing SPD and the CIL Regulations 2010, planning obligations can be sought to ensure both on and off-site provision for facilities made necessary by development or mitigation of detrimental impacts caused as a result of the new development. The following list of obligations and contributions are considered necessary to ensure facility provision and off-set the impact of development. The applicants have agreed to the following obligations/contributions. The Council’s Valuer has been involved in these discussions in order to assess the scale of obligations in reference to the viability and deliverability of development on this site. These discussions are on-going.

261. In specific regard to the concerns about the withdrawal of the Woodhouse Lane site affecting the viability of the Boorley Green site and therefore deliverability and in turn the impact upon the overall future strategy for development, it should be noted that whilst a number of emerging plan site allocations in this area together comprised a strategy for locating a large amount of development in the Botley-Hedge End area, the sites are not dependent on each other. The delivery of the Boorley Green site does not depend on the provision of infrastructure within or related to the now withdrawn Woodhouse Lane site and is not prejudiced or put in doubt by that deletion from the emerging plan. In terms of the aspiration for a Botley bypass, this application contributes by way of junction improvements and the ‘landing point’ improvements at the Maypole roundabout. It is envisaged that other development in the area will contribute to other elements that make up the Botley bypass by way of inclusion or financial contribution. Neither is the Sundays Hill bypass dependent upon the withdrawn scheme.

Obligations

1. Development and phasing in accordance with Design and Access Statement.

2. The provision of 30% affordable housing (420 units) in clusters of no more that 10-15 units, which each phase providing a minimum of 30% affordable housing, 65% of which would be for affordable rent. The mix of units to include the following: • 18 x 1 bed flats • 45 x 2 bed flats • 174 x 2 bed houses • 6 x 2 bed bungalows • 144 x 3 bed houses • 27 x 4 bed houses • 6 x 5 bed houses

To include 13 wheelchair standard units.

3. Highway Obligations (Section 106)

146

4. Highway Obligations – off site highway works (Section278)

Prior to 1st occupation of any dwelling served via Winchester Road • Construction of a roundabout on Winchester Road to form the principal access to the development site as shown indicatively on drawing ITB7205-GA-201 • Improvements to existing access points and enhanced pedestrian and cycle provision on Winchester Road at Braxells Farm and Botley Park Hotel ITB7205-GA-206 Rev E • Pedestrian and cycle enhancements on Winchester Road including provision of a 3m footway/cycleway north of the proposed access roundabout to Chancellors Lane, 3m footway/cycleway along site frontage and 3m footway/cycleway south of the Pear Tree Inn as shown indicatively on drawing ITB7205-GA-207 • Visual road narrowings on Winchester Street as shown indicatively on drawing ITB7205-GA-214 • Provision of a Gateway feature on Winchester Road and associated extension of existing 30mph limit- subject to the provision of a TRO as shown indicatively on drawing ITB7205- GA-201 • Improvements to Winchester Road/Woodhouse Lane junction, inclusive of change of priority and localised footway widening as shown indicatively on drawing ITB7205-GA-209

Prior to 1st occupation of any dwelling served via Maddoxford Lane • Construction of a new access onto Maddoxford Lane, inclusive of change of priorty from the eastern aspect of Maddoxford Lane into the development site, as shown indicatively on drawing ITB7205-GA-202 Rev E • Provision of a Gateway feature on Maddoxford Lane and associated extension of existing 30mph limit- subject to the provision of a TRO as shown indicatively on drawing ITB205- GA-202 Rev E • Pedestrian and cycle enhancements on Maddoxford Lane as shown indicatively on drawing ITB7205-GA-203

147

Prior to 1st occupation of any dwelling on site • Provision of improvement to Botley Footpath 1 as shown indicatively on drawing ITB7205-GA-223 Rev A. The specification for surfacing, drainage and lighting to be approved by the Highway Authority prior to commencement of development. The Applicant is to make all reasonable endeavours to ensure the footpath is lit (i) subject to obtaining all necessary consents including permission from the landowner (but without prejudice to a contention that no consents are required); and (ii) provided that these consents can be obtained at no more than nominal consideration. Should these works be prevented from being implemented, the County Council will receive payment for the value of the works.

Prior to 350th occupation of development • Construction of Sundays Hill Bypass as shown indicatively on drawing ITB7205-GA-115 Rev A

5. The transfer of 2.0 hectares of land free of charge with full access and services to Hampshire County Council for use as a primary school as per Design and Access Statement.

6. The provision of Community Infrastructure as below: i) Construction of and transfer of a community building to EBC or EBC nominated organisation for nil consideration before occupation of 600th dwelling unit to a specification to be agreed with EBC. The specification for the community building to include • 2 multi-use halls • 2 kitchen • 3 smaller meeting rooms • A foyer • Public WC’s to changing place standards • An office • A bar/café servery area serving the main hall • Storage including a cleaning cupboard.

AND

ii) The construction of and transfer of a changing facility building to EBC or EBC nominated organisation for nil consideration before occupation of 150th dwelling unit to a specification to be agreed with EBC. The planning application to be submitted concurrently with the

148

first reserved matters application. The specification of the changing facility building to include • 6 changing rooms, showers • WC’s, • a referees room, • a first aid area, • storage for goal posts, • a lounge • Publicly accessible WC’s.

The sum of both buildings as constructed by the developer not to exceed £2, 023,560, evidenced and agreed with EBC. If all reasonable endeavours used and the changing facility building is not delivered upon occupation of the 150th dwelling, the payment of £2,323,560 to EBC upon occupation of the 151st dwelling (or as otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority).

7. The provision of 30.52 hectares of public open space including 2 children’s play areas, 2 youth zones, a trim trail adjacent to but not within the ecological buffer zone, amenity areas, community orchards, 1.9ha of allotments, and playing fields. The setting out of the open space including any playing pitches to FA standard, maintenance for one year and subsequent transfer to EBC in accordance with a specification and schedule to be agreed for each type of open space including information and signage supplied to new residents informing them of the purpose of the additional green space in drawing people away from the SPA.

8. The construction of a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) not less than 22m x 44 m in size including an all-weather terrain, to a specification and programme of implementation to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with HCC Children Services.

9. The provision of an ecological monitoring and management plan to be agreed prior to first submission of reserved matters application.

10. The transfer of management of the SINC areas to EBC upon commencement of development with an agreed maintenance sum as detailed under ‘contributions’ below, and the transfer of the land to EBC in accordance with a specification and schedule to be agreed

11. An employment training plan incorporating funded construction period apprenticeships or similar and links with local education establishments.

12. No selling off or transferring unallocated parking spaces to individual dwelling purchasers/owners

13. The provision of a community use agreement for the hotel.

149

14. The provision of a community use agreement for the school

15. EBC obligated to implement recreational disturbance mitigation measures.

Contributions (all index linked)

1. Primary School Contribution £5,891,166

2. Secondary School Contribution £1,156,435

3. Health facilities £255,000

4. If changing facilities not delivered by occupation of 150th dwelling, a Community Infrastructure payment of £2,323,560 to EBC by occupation of 151st dwelling.

5. Provision of two play areas, maintenance and supervision £164,500

6. Management of all public open space £1,592,701including £875,250 for implementation of the Ecological Monitoring and Management Plan.

7. Highway and Transport contributions • Provision of the Transport Contribution of £530,000 covering traffic management in Boorley Green, improvements at Winchester Street/Mill Hill/High Street/Church Lane junction, a controlled crossing on Winchester Road, and pedestrian and cycle enhancement in the vicinity of the site (including Footpath No 1) to be paid upon 1st occupation of development • Provision of a Contribution towards delivery of an improvement scheme at M27 Junction 8 • Towards Footpath no 1 improvement works in the event of works in the above obligation being prevented • Provision of a travel plan bond (figure to be agreed) • HCC’s travel plan assessment and monitoring fees.

8. Community Development Worker £150,000

9. Economic Development (worker, training bursaries and for start up businesses £100,000

10. Public Art £100,000

11. On-site Street Tree Maintenance (£779 per new tree, £1,100 per retained semi-mature tree and £1,900 per retained mature tree).

12. Air Quality Monitoring (Fair Oak) £15,000

150

13. To increase capacity at Hedge End Household Waste Recycling Centre £95,000

14. Recreation Pressure Impact Project funding £144,800

15. Legal, Monitoring and Administration

262. These obligations would meet the 3 tests of Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010. The obligations sought are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms (to comply with policy and guidance); will go towards projects directly related to the development ; and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development . The amounts would be index-linked to ensure that the contributions rise in line with the cost of providing facilities.

Other material considerations

263. As a departure from the Development Plan, it is considered that the guidance contained within the NPPF on housing supply (as advised in the paragraphs above) is a material consideration of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with plan policies.

264. Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended section 143 of the Localism Act 2011 states that any local financial considerations are a matter to which local planning authorities must have regard to in determining planning applications; as far as they are material for the application. The weight to be attached to these considerations is a matter for the decision maker. Local financial considerations are defined as grants from Government or sums payable to the authority under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This means that the New Homes Bonus (NHB) is capable of being a material consideration where relevant. In the current case, the approval of the application would mean that the NHB would be payable for the net increase in dwellings from this development. The Head of Finance has calculated a total indicative figure of £2, 348,000 from this development over the next six years.

Conclusion

265. In terms of the development plan, it is considered that the application represents a departure from the development plan in that the South East Plan states a requirement for a Strategic Development Area (SDA) of 6000 houses in an area North/North-East of Hedge End. This proposal only proposes 1400 dwellings and whilst lying within the general area of North/North East Hedge End where the SDA was proposed to be located does not comprise the full extent of the SDA or the other land sues that the SDA would have included. In terms of the saved policies of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), the policies relating to housing provision are clearly time-expired. The emerging Local Plan, due

151

to its unadopted status must be afforded little weight in the consideration of the proposals although Policy BO1 allocates the site for housing.

266. Eastleigh Borough Council has a shortfall in its 5 year housing land supply and with an inability to demonstrate such a supply, it is appropriate to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development unless the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the NPPF polices.

267. As set out above, the mixed use nature of the scheme along with embodied improvements to bus, pedestrian and cycleway links means that the application scheme represents an accessible and sustainable proposal. In terms of the three dimensions of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF, the development would fulfil an economic role by expanding the quality and choice of housing, a social role by providing clearly needed market and affordable housing together with social and community facilities not available within the existing village and, with mitigation, a satisfactory environmental role.

268. However one of the other core planning principles in the NPPF is that planning should be genuinely plan led, thereby empowering local people to shape their surroundings. This is a thread, which, like sustainability, is found in a number of places in national policy.

269. There is a clear and reasonable expectation on the part of local residents, who have been actively engaged throughout the history of plans for this site and the wider Strategic Development Area, that the future of the land would be established through the Local Plan process. This expectation has been based on the history of policy development related to the site.

270. The scheme would amount to a significant proportion of the necessary housing provision with the Borough. On the one hand the provision of that amount of housing would be an obvious benefit, but the relative scale of the development could prejudge decisions about the appropriate sustainable location for the development within the Borough. The application process is clearly not the mechanism to consider alternatives or additional locations and such a review will be part of the Local Plan process.

271. There are a number of matters, assessed above, which are considered essentially neutral in the balancing exercise required to be carried out in the final consideration of the proposals. This is due to mitigation strategies embodied within the application which can be controlled by either planning conditions, Section 106 obligations or within the consideration given to reserved matters applications. Such matters include highways, ecology, trees, flood risk, archaeology, air quality and noise.

272. Adverse impacts include the loss of a valued recreational facility and the impact upon landscape character including the more rural setting to Boorley Green, highly valued by the local residents.

152

273. The benefits, in planning terms, and therefore factors weighing in favour of the proposal are the provision of open market housing, affordable housing, a local primary school, shared recreational and community facilities open to the wider community, local employment and economic expansion of the hotel business, management of existing important ecological areas, the provision of sustainable transport links and the provision of the Sundays Hill bypass. The design and layout impacts of the scheme cannot be assessed as either adverse or beneficial as too many details remain to be settled under reserved matters applications.

274. In conclusion therefore, although the NPPF endorses a plan led system, there is no adopted development plan that identifies sufficient housing to meet the clear housing land shortfall. National guidance encourages every effort to identify and then meet the housing needs of an area. The proposals would make a significant contribution towards meeting that need. Waiting for the emergence of the Local Plan would not accord with national policy. Overall it is considered that the proposals represent sustainable development and the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole.

275. The recommendation is therefore to approve the application subject to the referral of the planning application to the National Planning Casework Unit in accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 (on the basis that the application includes commercial uses outside a town centre); the resolution of the remaining nature conservation issues, the completion of the Section 106 agreement the Heads of Terms of which have been agreed above and the conditions as set out within the report.

153 This page is intentionally left blank

Title: Scale: 1:18000 O/12/71514 Map Ref: SU5013 Date: 04/01/2013 155 This page is intentionally left blank

156