Working in Partnership
EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL, PENNS PLACE, PETERSFIELD, HAMPSHIRE GU31 4EX
Telephone: 01730 266551 Website: www.easthants.gov.uk
PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA
Date: Thursday, 9 October 2014 Time: 6.00 pm Venue: Council Chamber, Penns Place, Petersfield, GU31 4EX
Membership: To be drawn from the pool of Councillors appointed at the Council meeting held on 11 September 2014.
(THE QUORUM FOR THIS MEETING IS 7 VOTING COUNCILLORS
The business to be transacted is set out below:
Jo Barden-Hernandez Service Manager – Legal & Democratic Services
Date of Publication : Wednesday, 1 October 2014
Contact Officer: Lisa Papps 01730 234073 Email: [email protected]
i
Page Nos
1. Apologies for Absence
2. Confirmation of Minutes
Please note that it is helpful if Councillors could give advance notice, to Democratic Services, of any questions they wish to raise in respect of the Minutes.
Minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2014 and 24 September 2014, circulated under separate cover.
3. Chairman's Announcements
4. Declarations of Interest
Councillors are reminded of their responsibility to declare any disclosable pecuniary interest which they may have in any item of business on the agenda no later than when that item is reached. Unless dispensation has been granted, you may not participate in any discussion of, or vote on, or discharge any function related to any matter in which you have a pecuniary interest as defined by regulations made by the Secretary of State under the Localism Act 2011. You must withdraw from the room or chamber when the meeting discusses and votes on the matter.
Matters for Decision
5. Acceptance of Supplementary Matters
6. Future Items 9 - 12
7. Report of the Service Manager Planning Development
PART 1 - East Hampshire District Council Items
Section I
(i) 55358/FUL/NU - Land at Winchester Road (adjoining 173), 13 - 44 Winchester Road, Four Marks, Alton David Wilson Homes
136 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED WORKS, ACCESS, PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE (AS AMENDED BY PLANS RECEIVED 20/06/2014).
ii
(ii) 50313/FUL/JonH - Land North of Towngate Farm House, Wield 45 - 64 Road, Medstead, Alton, GU34 5LY Crayfern Homes Ltd
FOUR DETACHED DWELLINGS
(iii) 55233/FUL/NP - Land West of Bay Tree Cottage, Main Road, 65 - 94 Bentley, Farnham Linden Homes Ltd
CHANGE OF USE OF LAND AND THE ERECTION OF 5 NEW DWELLINGS (ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 29 AUGUST 2014)
(iv) 36472/001/OUT/JM - Thedden Grange, Wivelrod Road, Bentworth, 95 - 108 Alton, GU34 4AU TGRA Ltd
OUTLINE - 6 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS (WITH SOME MATTERS RESERVED)
(v) 32440/004/FUL/GAC - New Palace Cinema, Normandy Street, 109 - 122 Alton, GU34 1DE Mr Jeyasingam
PARTIAL DEMOLITION TO THE REAR OF THE PALACE CINEMA, ALTON, AND ERECTION OF 4 X 2 BEDROOM FLATS AND ASSOCIATED PARKING.
(vi) 31232/004/FUL/MW - Ian Allan Travel, 19 Market Street, Alton, 123 - 132 GU34 1HA Mr Ormond
CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOP (CLASS A1) TO CAFE (CLASS A3)
Section II
There are no Section 2 items within this agenda.
PART 2 - South Downs National Park Items
Section I
There are no Section 1 items within this agenda.
Section II
There are no Section 2 items within this agenda.
iii
iv
v
Page Nos GENERAL INFORMATION
IF YOU WOULD LIKE A VERSION OF THIS AGENDA, OR ANY OF ITS REPORTS, IN LARGE PRINT, BRAILLE, AUDIO OR IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE PLEASE CONTACT DEMOCRATIC SERVICES ON 01730 234073.
Internet
This agenda and its accompanying reports can also be found on the East Hampshire District Council website: www.easthants.gov.uk
Public Attendance and Participation
Members of the public are welcome to attend and observe the meetings. Many of the Council’s meetings allow the public to make deputations on matters included in the agenda. Rules govern this procedure and for further information please get in touch with the contact officer for this agenda.
Disabled Access
All meeting venues have full access and facilities for the disabled.
Emergency Procedure
Please ensure that you are familiar with the location of all emergency exits which are clearly marked. In the unlikely event of an emergency an alarm will sound.
PLEASE EVACUATE THE BUILDING IMMEDIATELY.
DO NOT RE-ENTER THE BUILDING UNTIL AUTHORISED TO DO SO.
No Smoking Policy
All meeting venues operate a no smoking policy on all premises and grounds
vii This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Annex
PLANNING COMMITTEE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. This report considers planning applications submitted to the Council, as the Local Planning Authority, for determination. It may also include items which are being determined by the Council on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority.
East Hampshire District Council is acting as an agent for the South Downs National Park Authority in accordance with an agreement signed under Section 101 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Under this arrangement the Council can determine planning applications on sites within the South Downs National Park area of the district on behalf of the National Park Authority. Applications for the South Downs National Park are prefixed with the letters SDNP.
2.1. SECTIONS IN THE REPORT
The report is divided into two main parts;
Part 1 – East Hampshire District Council
This part of the report considers applications and related planning matters which are being determined or considered by the Council as the Local Planning Authority.
Part 2 – South Downs National Park Authority
This part of the report considers applications and related planning matters which fall within East Hampshire District’s area of the South Downs National Park and which the Council is determining or considering on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority.
Each part of the report is split into two sections:
Section 1 - Schedule of Application Recommendations
This Section deals with planning applications that have been received by the Council and which require the Planning Committee to make a decision to grant or refuse permission. Each item contains a full description of the proposed development, details of the consultations undertaken and summary of the responses received, an assessment of the proposal against current policy, a commentary and concludes with a recommendation. A presentation with slides will be made to Committee. Public participation is allowed on Section 1 items.
Section 2 – Other matters
This Section deals with other planning matters which are not the subject of a current application. No formal presentation will be made to Committee, unless required, and there will be no public participation.
1
Page 1 2.2. All information, advice, and recommendations contained in this report are understood to be correct at the time of publication, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints, some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date for consultee responses or neighbour comment. Where a recommendation is either altered or substantially amended between preparing the report and the Committee meeting or where additional information has been received, a separate Supplementary Matters paper will be circulated at the meeting to assist Councillors. This paper will be available to members of the public.
3. PLANNING POLICY
3.1. All planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) of the Town and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). If the development plan contains material policies or proposals and there are no other material considerations, the application should be determined in accordance with the development plan. Where there are other material considerations, the development plan will be the starting point, and other material considerations will also be taken into account. One such consideration will be whether the plan policies are relevant and up to date. The relevant development plans are the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan, The East Hampshire District Joint Core Strategy 2014 and the saved policies in the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review 2006.
3.2. Although not necessarily specifically referred to in the Committee report, the relevant development plan will have been used as a background document and the relevant policies taken into account in the preparation of the report on each item.
3.3. The East Hampshire District Joint Core Strategy and Local Plan have policies that contain criteria that must be met if a particular form of development is to be allowed. Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states: “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”
3.4. The Council may sometimes decide to grant planning permission for development that departs from a development plan if other material considerations indicate that it should proceed. One of these material considerations is whether the plan is up-to-date in terms of housing delivery.
4. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.1. Material considerations must be genuine planning considerations, i.e. they must be related to the development and use of land in the public interest. They must also fairly and reasonably relate to the application concerned. The Courts are the arbiters of what constitutes a material consideration. All the fundamental factors involved in land-use planning are included, such as the number, size, layout, siting, design, and external appearance of buildings and the proposed means of access, together with landscaping, impact on the neighbourhood, and the availability of infrastructure.
2
Page 2 4.2. Matters that should not be taken into account are: • loss of property value • loss of view • land and boundary disputes • matters covered by leases or covenants • the impact of construction work • property maintenance issues • need for development (save in • the identity or personal characteristics of certain defined circumstances) the applicant • competition between firms, • or matters that are dealt with by other legislation, such as the Building Regulations (e.g. structural safety, fire risks, means of escape in the event of fire etc). - The fact that a development may conflict with other legislation is not a reason to refuse planning permission or defer a decision. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure compliance with all relevant legislation.
4.3. Government statements of planning policy are material considerations that must be taken into account in deciding planning applications. These statements cannot make irrelevant any matter that is a material consideration in a particular case. Nevertheless, where such statements indicate the weight that should be given to relevant considerations, decision-makers must have proper regard to them.
4.4. In those cases where the development plan is not relevant, for example because there are no relevant policies, the planning application should be determined on its merits in the light of all the material considerations.
5. PLANNING CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS
5.1. The Council can impose conditions on planning permissions only where there is a clear land-use planning justification for doing so. Conditions should be used in a way that is clearly seen to be fair, reasonable, and practicable. One key test of whether a particular condition is necessary is if planning permission would have to be refused if the condition were not imposed. Otherwise, such a condition would need special and precise justification.
5.2. Where it is not possible to include matters that are necessary for a development to proceed in a planning condition the Council can agree a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Planning obligations should meet the Secretary of State's policy tests. They should be: • necessary; • relevant to planning; • directly related to the proposed development; • fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and • reasonable in all other respects.
3
Page 3 5.3. The use of planning obligations is governed by the fundamental principle that planning permission may not be bought or sold. It is therefore not legitimate for unacceptable development to be permitted because of benefits or inducements offered by a developer, which are not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations are only a material consideration to be taken into account when deciding whether to grant planning permission, and it is for the Council to decide what weight should be attached to a particular material consideration.
6. PLANNING APPEALS Applicants have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State if an application is refused, or granted subject to conditions, or if it has not been determined within the specified period. Appeals are administered by the Planning Inspectorate - an executive agency reporting to the Secretary of State. Appeals are considered by written representation, hearings, and public inquiries. In planning appeals, it is normally expected that both parties will pay their own costs. Costs can however, be awarded against the Council where it:
(a) fails to determine a planning application in good time – the Council must have good planning reasons to explain and justify why it did not make a decision in time. (b) fails to carry out adequate prior investigation consistent with national policy and guidance. (c) prevents or delays development that should clearly be permitted having regard to the development plan, national policy statements and any other material considerations. It is the Councils responsibility to produce evidence to show clearly, why the development cannot be permitted. Reasons for refusal must be • complete, • precise, • specific • relevant to the application, and • supported by substantiated evidence. (d) fails to show reasonable planning grounds for taking a decision contrary to officer advice (e) gives too much weight to neighbour objections - the extent of local opposition is not, in itself, a reasonable ground for resisting development. To carry significant weight, opposition should be founded on valid planning reasons that is supported by substantial evidence. (f) relies on unsubstantiated objections where they include valid reasons for refusal but rely almost exclusively on local opposition from third parties, through representations and attendance at an inquiry or hearing, to support the decision. (g) fails to show that it has considered the possibility of imposing relevant planning conditions to allow development to proceed.
The following are examples given in Planning Practice Guidance of circumstances that may lead to an award of costs against the Council: (a) ignoring relevant national policy – for example, the advice in NPPF, (b) where a proposal is contrary to the development plan but the relevant policy has been superseded by national policy which advocates an entirely different approach. An example might be ignoring national advice in paragraph 54 of NPPF which may allow some market housing to bring forward a rural affordable housing exception site, 4
Page 4 (c) acting contrary to, or not following, well-established case law, (d) persisting in objections to a scheme, or part of a scheme, which has already been granted planning permission or which the Secretary of State or an Inspector has previously indicated to be acceptable, (e) not determining like cases in a like manner – for example, imposing an additional reason for refusal on a similar scheme to one previously considered by the planning authority where circumstances have not materially changed, (f) failing to grant a further planning permission for a scheme the subject of an extant or recently expired permission where there has been no material change in circumstances, (g) refusing to approve reserved matters when the objections relate to issues that should already have been considered at the outline stage, (h) imposing a condition that is not necessary, precise, enforceable, relevant to planning, relevant to the development permitted or reasonable and thereby does not comply with the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance on the use of conditions in planning permissions, (i) requiring the appellant to enter into or complete a planning obligation which does not accord with the tests in para 204 of the NPPF, or (j) not imposing conditions on a grant of planning permission where conditions could effectively have overcome the objection identified – for example, in relation to highway matters.
7. THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S ROLE
7.1 The Secretary of State has reserve powers to direct the council to refer an application to him/her for decision. This is what is meant by a 'called-in' application. In general, this power of intervention is used selectively and the Secretary of State will not interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. The Planning Practice Guidance sets out the type of development proposals that directs local authorities to consult with the Secretary of State before granting planning permission.
8. PROPRIETY
8.1 Councillors are elected to represent the interests of the whole community in planning matters and not simply their individual Wards. When determining planning applications they must take into account planning considerations only. This can include views expressed on relevant planning matters. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless it is founded upon valid planning reasons.
5
Page 5 9. PRIVATE INTERESTS
9.1 The planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another, although private interests may coincide with the public interest in some cases. It can be difficult to distinguish between public and private interests, but this may be necessary on occasion. The basic question is not whether owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities and the existing use of land and buildings that ought to be protected in the public interest. Covenants or the maintenance/protection of private property are therefore not material planning consideration.
10. OTHER LEGISLATION
10.1 Non-planning legislation may place statutory requirements on planning authorities, or may set out controls that need to be taken into account (for example, environmental legislation, or water resources legislation). The Council, in exercising its functions, also must have regard to the general requirements of other legislation, in particular: • The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which prevents discrimination directly or indirectly in any functions, carried out by public authorities. • The Equality Act 2010, which places a duty on all those responsible for providing a service to the public not to discriminate against disabled people by providing a lower standard of service. • The Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. The general purpose of the ECHR is to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to maintain and promote the ideals and values of a democratic society. It sets out the basic rights of every person together with the limitations placed on these rights in order to protect the rights of others and of the wider community. The specific Articles of the ECHR relevant to planning include Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property). All planning applications are assessed to make sure that the subsequent determination of the development proposal is compatible with the Act. If there is a potential conflict, this will be highlighted in the report on the relevant item.
6
Page 6 11. PUBLIC SPEAKING
11.1 The Council has adopted a scheme for the public to speak on all Section 1 items. Where public speaking is allowed, the applicant or their representative , the local Parish/Town Council, and one objector may address the Committee, for a maximum of three minutes each, by prior invitation. Members of the public wishing to speak must have contacted the Meeting Administrator in Democratic Services at least 48 hours before the meeting. It is not possible to arrange to speak to the Committee at the Committee meeting itself.
11.2 For probity reasons associated with advance disclosure of information under the Access to Information Act, neither the applicant, Parish Council, nor an objector will be allowed to circulate, show or display further material at, or just before, the Committee meeting.
12. INSPECTION OF DRAWINGS
12.1 All drawings are available for inspection on the internet at www.easthants.gov.uk and at the Planning Development Reception area during our normal office hours. The files and drawings will also be available 30 minutes prior to the start of meeting for Councillors to inspect.
13. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
13.1 There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. However, in the event of an appeal, further resources will be put towards defending the Council’s decision. Rarely and in certain circumstances, decisions on planning applications may result in the Council facing an application for costs arising from a planning appeal. Officers will aim to alert Members where this may be likely and provide appropriate advice in such circumstances.
Chris Murray Service Manager Planning Development
Background Papers:
• the individual planning application file (reference quoted in each case) • the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan 2013 • East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy 2014 • East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review 2006 - Saved Policies • Government advice and guidance contained in circulars, National Planning Policy Framework, Planning Practice Guidance and ministerial statements • any other document specifically referred to in the report.
7
Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 8
PLANNING COMMITTEE
PS.435/2014 9 October 2014
POSSIBLE FUTURE ITEMS FOR COMMITTEE / SITE VISIT
The following items are for INFORMATION purposes only. They comprise major applications that have either been submitted some time ago but are still not yet ready for consideration or are recently received applications that are not ready to be considered by the Committee or determined under the Scheme of Delegation. The purpose of this report is to highlight the receipt of these applications to ensure that any issues that they raise are highlighted at an early stage. Councillors may also suggest possible future site visits under this item.
Reference Description and Address 1 55010/002 Outline - 10 dwellings - 4 affordable dwellings and 6 open market dwellings
Land East of Cedar Stables, Castle Street, Medstead, Alton
This application has only just recently been submitted and consultations and notifications are under way. It is too early to make any decision as to how this application will be determined.
2 55250/001 Outline application - Residential development of 120 houses comprising 48 affordable and 72 open market houses
Land South West of Highmead House, Old Odiham Road, Shalden, Alton
This application has only just recently been submitted and consultations and notifications are under way. It is too early to make any decision as to how this application will be determined.
3 29427/014 Northbrook Estate, Farnham Road, Bentley, Farnham
Single storey pavilion and additional guest accommodation
This application has only just recently been submitted and consultations and notifications are under way. It is too early to make any decision as to how this application will be determined.
Page 9 4 20837/047 Pax Hill Care Home, Pax Hill, Bentley, Farnham, GU10 5NG
Two storey extension, internal alterations to create second floor accommodation in roof space and internal alterations to existing EMF unit
This application has only just recently been submitted and consultations and notifications are under way. It is too early to make any decision as to how this application will be determined.
5 26233/017 Little Kitfield, Kitwood Road, Four Marks, Alton, GU34 5AS
11 dwellings (including 6 affordable) with associated landscaping and access following demolition of existing office and storage buildings
This application has only just recently been submitted and consultations and notifications are under way. It is too early to make any decision as to how this application will be determined.
6 27202/029 Applegarth Farm, Headley Road, Grayshott, Hindhead, GU26 6JL
Residential development of 80 dwellings (32 affordable Homes and 48 market price homes) with garages and parking spaces, children's play area, new vehicular access, natural green space and open space parking area (as amended information received 05/09/2014)
This application has only just recently been submitted and consultations and notifications are under way. It is too early to make any decision as to how this application will be determined.
7 49234/005 Garthwaite, Liphook Road, Passfield, Liphook, GU30 7RX
Change of use of equestrian land to residential curtilage, replacement dwelling (existing dwelling to be demolished on occupation of replacement), change of use of existing residential curtilage to equestrian
This application has only just recently been submitted and consultations and notifications are under way. It is too early to make any decision as to how this application will be determined.
Page 10 8 50086/004 Hewshott Grange Cottage, Hewshott Lane, Liphook, GU30 7SU
Addition of equestrian sand area
This application has only just recently been submitted and consultations and notifications are under way. It is too early to make any decision as to how this application will be determined.
9 SDNP/14/04736/FUL Paris House, Frenchmans Road, Petersfield, Hampshire
Residential development comprising 47 dwellings following demolition of existing building
The South Downs National Park Authority has directed that this application will be dealt with by that Authority. It has been included in this section for information only.
Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 12
Page 13
PART 1
EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT OF THE SERVICE MANAGER PLANNING DEVELOPMENT
Applications to be determined by the Council as the Local Planning Authority
PS.435 /2014 9 October 2014
SECTION 1 – SCHEDULE OF APPLICATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Item No.: 1
The information, recommendations, and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.
PROPOSAL 136 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED WORKS, ACCESS, PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE (AS AMENDED BY PLANS RECEIVED 20/06/2014). LOCATION: Land at Winchester Road (Adjoining 173), Winchester Road, Four Marks, Alton REFERENCE : 55358 PARISH:Four Marks APPLICANT: David Wilson Homes CONSULTATION EXPIRY : 08 July 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY : 19 June 2014 COUNCILLORS: Cllr M C Johnson MBE, Cllr I Thomas SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL
This application has been included on the agenda as it is a departure from the adopted policies of the Local Plan and is being considered under the Interim Housing Policy Statement.
Page 14 Site and Development
Application site The site comprises 8.22ha of open and undeveloped agricultural land that is relatively level, albeit gently undulating on part of the site. The site lies outside, but borders the settlement policy boundary to the north-east.
The site is at the western extent of Four Marks, approximately 1.3km south west of the shops and services in the local centre, and sits to the south of Winchester Road (A31) and to the east of Barn Lane. Residential development exists to the north and east of the site together with some low density houses to the west along Barn lane. To the south is open equestrian land and to the south-east is Four Marks Recreation Ground, playground and bowls club.
Vehicular access to the site is currently gained via Barn Lane, off Winchester Road. A local pedestrian route exists to/from the recreation ground to the southern portion of the site and is often used by residents and dog walkers. The site does not contain public rights of way but Barn Lane to the west links up with byway open to all traffic (BOAT) to the south of the site
Proposed development The application seeks full planning permission for 136 dwellings with access, parking, landscaping, openspace and recreational facilities to be provided on site. Vehicular access would be new dedicated access off Winchester Road. The hedgerow fronting Winchester Road would be retained (except for the access point).
The proposal includes a significant element of public open space, children's play space and a recreational playing field, all to the south of the site, with the residential built form being to the north and occupying approximately two thirds of the site. This equates to a residential density of 23 dwelling per hectare. 54 dwellings would be delivered as affordable housing which equates to just under 40% of the total. The applicant has agreed that the shortfall (0.4 units) will be secured as a commuted sum payment.
Amended plans have been received which reduces the scale and number of dwellings near the boundary with 179 Winchester Road; affordable housing mix has been altered following discussions with Housing Officer; additional visitor parking provided and a change to the landscaping scheme following comments raised by the Council's Arboricultural Officer.
The majority of the houses proposed would be two storey in height, with 15 of them being 2.5 storeys and 7 being 1.5 storey dwellings . The main proposals are:
• Application seeking full planning permission • Promoted under the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement (IHPS) • 136 dwellings • Density of 23dph • Mainly 2 storey development • Access directly from Winchester Road (A31) • Open market housing: 13 x 2 bed: 39 x 3 bed; 27 x 4 bed, 3 x 5 bed (total 82)
Page 15 • Affordable housing: 12 x 1 bed; 26 x 2 bed; 14 x 3 bed; 2 x 4 bed (Total 54) 70% rented and 30% as shared ownership
The application is also supported by detailed consultant’s reports, including;
• Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage strategy • Transport Assessment • Travel plan • Noise Assessment • Landscape and Visual Appraisal • Landscape Design Statement • Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement • Extended phase 1 Habitat Survey • Bat Activity Survey • Reptile Presence/Likely Absence Survey Report • Dormice Survey Report • Air Quality Assessment • Energy Statement • Ground Investigation and Contaminated Land Assessment • Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Assessment • Economic Benefits Assessment • Affordable Housing Statement • Site Waste Management Plan • Statement of Community Involvement • Building for Life 12 Assessment
Relevant Planning History No relevant history on the application site.
Other current major housing applications in Four Marks/South Medstead settlement area
25256/032 - Land at Friars Oak Farm, Boyneswood Road, Medstead - Erection of 80 dwellings, including 32 affordable homes, garages, car parking, associated access, infrastructure, open space and landscaping. At their meeting on 26 June this year, members of the Council's Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 Legal Agreement.
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has subsequently written to the Council, dated 21 August 2014, instructing the Council not to grant planning permission until the Secretary of State has considered whether the application should be referred to him for determination.
55258/001 - Land North of Boyneswood Lane, Medstead - Outline application for 51 dwellings. Refused at 17 July 2014 committee meeting. Appeal recently lodged.
Page 16 55302 - Land rear of 41-43A Blackberry Lane, Four Marks - Full application for 23 dwellings. Refused at 7 August 2014 committee meeting.
39009/003 - Land to the north of the Telephone Exchange, Lymington Bottom Road, Medstead - Outline application for 22 dwellings and associated works. Refused at 28 August 2014 committee meeting.
55197/001/FUL - Land East of, 20 - 38 Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead - 75 dwellings with associated access, landscaping, public open space and provision of allotments. Refused at 18 September 2014 committee meeting.
54976/001 - Noah's Ark, 32 Telegraph lane, Four Marks - Outline application for 17 two storey dwellings comprising 6 affordable homes and 11 market price homes with garages, parking provision, roads and access after demolition of the existing two dwellings. Currently under consideration.
30800/007 - Land rear of 131 Winchester Road, Four Marks - Outline application for up to 45 dwellings, new vehicular and pedestrian access off Lapwing Way and new pedestrian/cycle path link to Winchester Road. Currently under consideration.
Development Plan Policies and Proposals
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy
CP1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development CP2 - Spatial Strategy CP10 - Spatial strategy for housing CP11 - Housing tenure, type and mix CP13 - Affordable housing on residential development sites CP16 - Protection and provision of social infrastructure CP18 - Provision of open space, sport and recreation and built facilities CP19 - Development in the countryside CP20 - Landscape CP21 - Biodiversity CP24 - Sustainable construction CP25 - Flood Risk CP26 - Water resources/ water quality CP27 - Pollution CP28 - Green Infrastructure CP29 - Design CP31 - Transport CP32 - Infrastructure
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (2006)
T3 - Pedestrians and Cyclists T4 - Protection of Public Footpaths
Page 17 H14 - Other Housing Outside Settlement Policy Boundaries HE17 - Archaeological & Ancient Monuments P7 - Contaminated Land
Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The NPPF was published in March 2012 and came into force with immediate effect. At the heart of it is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It states that the development plan is the starting point for consideration of planning applications, and planning applications must be determined in accordance with it, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five- year supply of deliverable housing sites.” (paragraph 49). Housing supply is addressed later in this report.
Village Design Statement - Four Marks Village Design Statement - non statutory planning guidance that has been the subject of public consultation and therefore is a material planning consideration.
EHDC Interim Housing Policy Statement (IHPS) - non-statutory interim planning policy to guide housing development applications until the Council is able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply or until a Local Plan (Allocations) is in place.
Four Marks and Medstead Local Interim Planning Statement (LIPS) - non-statutory local supplement to the IHPS referred to above.
Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments
Environment Agency - No objection, subject to a condition on groundwater protection
Natural England - No objection
Thames Water - No objection, but due to an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this application, a grampian style condition should be imposed requiring details of a drainage strategy to be provided.
HCC Highways - The Transport Assessment has made a reasonable assessment of the likely impacts of the proposed development and has identified that the proposed development will not have a significant impact on the safety or operation of the local highway network.
Page 18 The site access proposals (and associated off-site works) have been closely considered and have been shown to operate well in future traffic conditions, and are shown to comply with the appropriate design standards. In order to mitigate the impact of the development and promote sustainable transport, a financial contribution and Travel Plan should be secured, to compliment the works provided as part of the access. No objection, subject to conditions and S106 legal agreement.
HCC Rights Of Way Team - No objection
HCC School Organisation Officer - No objection, but a contribution for an expansion towards primary places of £687,752 will be required in line with the County Council’s Developer Contribution Policy.
HCC Ecologist - Initially commented that whilst the ecological information provided was generally very good, there were a couple of protected species issues which needed clarification. The applicant submitted additional information to address this concern and the County Ecologist has not raised an objection but recommend a condition.
HCC Archaeologist - No objection, subject to conditions
Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service - No objection but recommends informatives.
Hampshire Constabulary, Crime Reduction Design Advisor - No objection suggests improvements to the scheme to reduce the potential for crime, including boundary treatments appropriate lighting and more overlooking of areas. (Officer comment: Majority of these issues can be controlled by a condition)
EHDC Housing Officer - No objection to amended details, subject to a commuted sum payment for the 0.4 shortfall in affordable housing provision on site
EHDC Recycling and Refuse - No objection but recommends an informative
EHDC Environment Health, Pollution Team - No objection, subject to conditions
EHDC Environment Health, Contaminated Land Team - No objection, subject to conditions
EHDC Landscape Officer - No objection, subject to a condition requiring detailed landscaping plans showing additional planting
EHDC Arboricultural Officer - No objection subject to a condition being imposed ensuring development takes place in accordance with the submitted Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement
EHDC Drainage Consultant - No objection, subject to conditions requiring details of drainage systems for both foul and surface water.
Page 19 Four Marks Parish Council - Objects, for the following reasons:
• This site is outside the Settlement Policy Boundary and is over a mile away from the village centre shops and medical centres, therefore not sustainable • The development will have a detrimental effect on the visual impact of Four Marks • Loss of currently active farming land • The proposed new access onto the A31 is at the end/beginning of a dual carriageway where the speed limit changes with no provision for crossing of pedestrians, no safe access to the bus stop on the other side of the road. Whilst a right turn lane is proposed, this will not alleviate all the serious safety issues that this new access will create. • The accident statistics were out of date, taken from a recorded entry in 2012, and they were not obtained from the recognised recording authority (ie.HCC) • There are too many houses and all crammed at one end of the site. • They are not addressing the needs of the existing Four Marks residents ie. retirement homes, bungalows and smaller properties, for those wishing to downsize or start out. • 40% of these houses will be social housing, but there are no employment opportunities in this area • It appears that the location of the drainage pond is higher than the development itself • There is a proposal for a football pitch, in addition to the one Four Marks already has, which will have no access other than through the development, and no proposed changing facilities, and will require maintenance, by whom? The houses could be more easily spread out using this open space, using suitable landscaping and keeping the effect of the countryside • There should be no houses higher than two storeys, the development is at one of the highest points of Four Marks • Secure by Design recommendations have not been addressed • Access to Four Marks Primary School would be via an unlit dirty lane with no footpath, or by vehicular access via the A31, ie. additional car movements not in keeping with the schools travel plan. • The area of the proposed development is not on mains drainage, properties in Barn Lane, Winchester Road, and Bishops View all have septic tanks. Thames Water has confirmed that no development can take place until a plan is in place to handle the extra sewage • There is no gas supply in Barn Lane, so the gas main will need to be extended to supply this development • No provision for back-up generators at the pumping facilities to deal with the numerous local power cuts
In summary, this development does not satisfy the criteria of the Interim Housing Policy Statement and the Joint Core Strategy:
- This development would fundamentally change the character of the village - Numbers. This development of 136 would be well in excess of the recommended amount, therefore outweighs the need - This new development would require significant new infrastructure, at great cost - This development does not meet the needs of the local population
Page 20 Four Marks Parish Council pleads that a site visit by the Planning Committee must be undertaken to ascertain the unsuitability of the site, and recommend that this site is looked at cumulatively with Phase I (Meadowbrook), the Brislands Lane site and the other four proposed SHLAA sites in this vicinity, development of all these sites would effectively create a new mini town.
HOWEVER, in the event that the Planning Committee do decide to grant outline planning, then Four Marks Parish Council must be represented in the Reserved Matters and would propose a substantial contribution per house to be put back into the Four Marks infrastructure.
Representations
260 letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns: - a) increase in traffic and road safety issues for all users; b) increase in parking issues; c) lack of highways visibility to access; d) would hamper emergency access; e) traffic assessments not reflective of reality; f) promotes use of cars and lack of public transport; g) increased traffic would lead to a decrease in tourism; h) mains drainage, surface water and sewage disposal issues; i) deep borehole drilling risks contamination to groundwater; j) surface water has been directed towards the proposed pond; k) potential flood risk and flood risk at Farringdon not mentioned; l) low water pressure in the area; m) Thames Water not the sites provider; n) inadequate utilities capacity; o) sites crosses two high voltage power lines which need relocating; p) lack of infrastructure and local facilities/services to support development; q) proposed football pitch is unnecessary; r) would result in the inability of the Alton and Four Marks Archery club to use of the cricket ground; s) the responsibility of maintaining the proposed open greens paces; t) disturbance to rare wildlife species, in particular dormice and bats, with the risk of mitigation measures being undermined; u) discrepancies and mistakes in dormouse survey; v) hedge on opposite side of road has been removed without permission; w) damage to trees; x) development has left an unsightly mud bank creating a safety hazard; y) site is outside settlement policy boundary; would set a precedent z) loss of countryside, open space and vistas;better sites elsewhere za) greenbelts should be protected;promotes urban sprawl; zb) contributes to global warming; zc) Council should be obligated to protect the countryside boarding the South Downs National Park;
Page 21 zd) impact on air quality leading to health problems and loss of wildlife; ze) loss of a functioning agricultural field; zf) does not provide a mix of housing sizes, types and tenures to reflect local housing requirements; zg) size, scale, layout and density out of proportion and character; zh) high density; zi) poor design; zj) over-development of the area; zk) loss of privacy and overlooking; zl) increase in noise and disturbance from construction, proposed sports facilities and traffic; zm) light pollution; zn) loss of views; zo) catchment pond too close to play area creating a safety hazard; zp) increase in crime and vandalism; zq) need for Neighbourhood local plan in place before development of this scale is considered. zr) negative impact on the social well being of locals; zs) does not promote a social community orientated environment; zt) contravenes local planning policies and the interim housing policy statement;timeframe for development completion is unsustainable; zu) contravenes village design statement; zv) housing requirement numbers have been met; zw) the provision of affordable housing is not affordable and not given to locals and has not been dispersed; zx) no economic advantage to the village; zy) lack of local employment opportunities, and zz) unproven deliverability and viability.
1 letter of support has been received.
1 letter of comment has been received raising the following points:- a) better SHLAA site than others; b) a more suitable site than application 25256/032 (Friars Oak Farm, Boyneswood Road) c) Council’s Interim Housing Policy Statement is incomplete until a five year housing supply can be demonstrated; d) Policy CP10 of the JCS carries more weight than the Interim Housing Policy Statement and any change of policy would leave EHDC open to legal action in terms of inconsistency.
Determining Issues
1. Development plan and material considerations 2. Principle of development 3. Deliverability 4. Mix and type of housing
Page 22 5. Impact on the character of the area 6. Access, movement and highway safety 7. Impact on neighbouring amenity 8. Drainage, flood risk and foul water 9. Impact on trees and ecology 10. Sustainable construction and energy efficiency 11. Infrastructure and developer contributions 12 . Response to parish/town council comments
The key consideration in the determination of this planning application relates firstly to the principle of housing on this site given its countryside position having regard to the development plan and the lack of sufficient housing land supply within the district which has led to the publication of the Interim Housing Policy Statement. As part of the consideration of the principle of development aspects including the amount of housing proposed, the location and sustainability of the site, and the credentials of the application as a deliverable prospect are also key.
1. Development plan and material considerations
As required by section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, applications must be determined in line with the adopted development plan for the area, unless material considerations apply. The development plan for EHDC comprises the 'saved' policies of the 2006 Local Plan: Second Review and the policies set out in the newly adopted Joint Core Strategy.
A significant material consideration is the NPPF, particularly paragraph 49 which confirms that whilst the local planning authority does not have a five year housing supply then relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date. East Hampshire District Council does not currently have a five year supply of housing.
The effect of paragraph 49 of the NPPF is that saved Local Plan policies and JCS policies which restrict market housing development within the countryside beyond designated settlement policy boundaries (SPBs) are, therefore, not considered up to date. Whilst many objectors to the application point to restrictions on development outside settlement policy boundaries as sufficient grounds for resisting the application and oppose encroachment into greenfield sites, it is not. There are two reasons, firstly the impact of paragraph 49 and secondly the Council recognises that the District's housing requirements as now identified in the Joint Core Strategy is significantly larger than has previously been the case that development outside the SPBs identified in the Local Plan: Second Review, on greenfield sites, will be essential to meet the new target. The identification of the essential greenfield sites would be undertaken in the Local Plan Part 2 Allocations. However, the lack of a five year housing land supply brings added urgency to the need to release greenfield sites and effectively takes decisions of principle away from the plan led system and purely into the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as the NPPF sets out at paragraph 14.
Page 23 The Interim Housing Policy Statement In recognising the reliance on the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development the Council has adopted interim supplementary guidance ("Interim Policy Statement of Housing”) referred to as the IHPS.
The IHPS establishes a list of criteria and considerations to be applied in determining applications for sites outside settlement policy boundaries relative to sustainability considerations in East Hampshire. A primary sustainable development principle in East Hampshire is the settlement hierarchy. This categorises settlements as market towns; large local service centres; small local service centres and other settlements with a settlement policy boundary. These categories relate to the level of facilities and services that are readily accessible. The IHPS takes forward the sustainability principles of the settlement hierarchy and is only supportive of sites which are immediately adjacent or contiguous to existing local plan settlement policy boundaries. This would ensure that planning is based on sound sustainability principles whilst containing sprawl and maintaining compact urban envelopes.
The IHPS is not intended to replace or frustrate any part of the plan-making process, but to guide development in its absence, and to speed up the delivery of housing within the district. IHPS criteria closely reflects the sustainable development aims and objectives in the NPPF and in the adopted JCS with some additional local criteria which reflect the interim status / purpose of the policy. The IHPS includes a distinction between the housing allocation numbers within key settlements in the JCS; the IHPS does not include the word ‘minimum’. This is because the IHPS is a short term interim position. The Council considers that it would be most sustainable to manage the amount of development in each of the target settlements over the 1-2 year period whilst the Council does not have a five year supply of housing and a Part 2 Local Plan: allocations. To permit all the JCS housing target for the period up to 2028 in a short period is not a sustainable approach to development.
Applications will need to comply with any remaining saved policies in the Local Plan: Second Review, where applicable, such as policies H9 and H10 etc (Criteria 1). The intention of the IHPS is to manage development outside settlement policy boundaries so that it is allowed in locations at an appropriate in scale or density relative to the size, role and character of the settlement in question (Criteria 2) ) that would result in sustainable development. Criteria also (3, 4) seek to conserve townscape and landscape character, and secure adequate assessment for sites near to European protected species designations (5, 6), and support developments with safe and accessible environments (7. The policy seeks to secure a housing mix that is targeted to the local housing needs and that includes upwards of 40% affordable housing (8, 9), again all issues that are essential in creating sustainable development. Concurrently, development is expected to make comprehensive and effective use of available land, with appropriate density, helping to control the amount of greenfield land likely to be development and contain the geographic size of settlements (10, 11). Criteria 12, 13 are concerned with the deliverability of sites and developments coming forward under this policy.
Page 24 These require that development, individually or cumulatively should not be constrained by the need for significant unplanned/funded off-site infrastructure; that there is evidence of deliverability and viability, having regard to necessary contributions towards infrastructure and affordable housing, and that the intention to develop is demonstrated by the applicant.
Criteria 13 sets out that any planning permission granted under the IHPS would need to commence within 2 years and this will be subject to a planning condition to maximise the likelihood of delivery of housing within the district in the short term. Here, it is important to reflect on the IHPS’ purpose, which is clarified in the supporting text at Paragraph 5.2:
“The Council wants new homes delivered in the right places to meet the needs of the District... the emphasis will be on sites being put forward under this Interim Policy Statement approach being deliverable at the time that they are put forward. Therefore detailed applications would be preferred and be accompanied by evidence of deliverability. They should not, for example, be dependent upon delivery of significant off-site infrastructure; and should be fully in the applicant’s control. Those proposing development of a site are therefore encouraged to demonstrate a strong desire and willingness to develop it in the short term, with the necessary evidence to back up such statements.”
Local Interim Planning Statement The Council is undertaking public consultation events in the main settlements to seek views on sustainability issues affecting that settlement and which housing development sites might best meet local housing needs and place shaping aspirations. The results of the consultations are being collated and combined with an overview of the sustainability profiles of each of the settlements in Local Interim Planning Statements (LIPS). The Four Marks and Medstead LIPS was adopted by Council at the meeting held on 19 June 2014 and is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.
The LIPS have two purposes. They are an initial options consultation under Regulation 18 of the Planning Regulations, the results of which will feed into the Part 2 Local Plan: Allocations. Additionally, the LIPS provide a local supplement to the District wide IHPS referred to above, by adding local detail on what sustainable development should look like in each settlement
The LIPS for Four Marks and Medstead followed two consultation events. These events were held on Wednesday 14 May (5.30pm - 8pm) at the Four Marks Village Hall and on Thursday 15 May (2pm - 4.30pm) at Medstead Village Hall. Approximately 360 people attended the events. The consultation events followed a consistent format which is being used in the preparation of all the LIPS, including the use of display boards containing a housing target map of the whole district, settlement profiles of economy, social facilities, demographics environmental assets, Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) maps and a large scale aerial map of the settlement area. Those attending the events were able to express a preference on the SHLAA sites and their preferred infrastructure needs as well as leaving comments and feedback. Planning and Community Officers were present to give advice and monitor the expressed preferences.
Page 25 As the events are an initial step in the Part 2 Local Plan Allocations work, for which there is no regulatory format to follow, then they are valuable snapshots of community input. The progress on the Part 2 Local Plan will build on this together with future community consultation events and use the up to date evidence that already exists for the JCS e.g. transport capacity, Sustainability Appraisal, Green Infrastructure Strategy, housing needs, environmental assets etc.
In terms of the housing site choices, there are a large number of options in the Four Marks settlement area which is an indicator of the popularity of the area, with developers and the relatively unconstrained nature of the environment. The data collected shows that there are two clear preferences in Four Marks and South Medstead. The application site, known as site FM014 in the SHLAA, at the western edge of Four Marks with direct access onto the A31 Winchester Road has the highest preference level with 141 ‘votes’ across the two events (75 at the Four Marks event and 66 at the Medstead event). This site is the subject of this application.
The second highest preference was for MED004 (Friars Oak Farm) with 71 ‘votes’ across the two events (49 at the Four Marks event and 22 at the Medstead event). The Council resolved to grant planning permission for this development at its Planning Committee on 26 June this year, subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement. As mentioned earlier in this report, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has subsequently written to the Council, dated 21 August 2014, instructing the Council not to grant planning permission until the Secretary of State has considered whether the application should be referred to him for determination. The Council is awaiting this decision.
The only other sites with any significant preference are MED001 and MED002, which are in effect one large area around the rail station on the north side of the railway line.
The community feedback on infrastructure and facilities showed an overwhelming preference for improved infrastructure to deal with flooding, telecoms and water/sewerage. Broadband speeds continue to be below national averages. There have been sewer improvements in Four Marks over the last 15 year, however, the continued growth means the pipes and the Alton Sewage works are reaching capacity and requiring upgrade. The high elevation of Four Marks also means water pressures are relatively poor. The water related issues are most pronounced north of the railway line. At the Four Marks event there was also a strong preference for community facilities. Some recent improvements have been made to the tennis and bowls facilities but the Village Hall is in need of updating and the recreation ground and associated buildings have been identified for improvement in the Community Plan.
The access onto the A31 and the traffic using the narrow roads in the Basingstoke M3 direction are a major issue for Four Marks and South Medstead, particularly at peak times. The A31 junctions at Lymington Bottom and Telegraph Lane are considered to be a safety issue, whilst the narrow rail line crossings at Lymington Bottom Road and Boyneswood Road are seen as bottlenecks for vehicles and a safety issue for pedestrians.
Page 26 The LIPS also cross references other community engagement that has taken place recently, including the Four Marks Community Plan. All the analysis is clear that Four Marks/South Medstead is an area characterised by commuting and people recently moving into the area resulting in a community that lacks some roots and community cohesion. The continued drive for relatively large scale development levels in the settlement is likely to continue that characteristic.
Also of relevance is that Four Marks and Medstead parish areas were designated as a Neighbourhood Planning Area at full Council on 19 June 2014. A Neighbourhood Plan group is in place and will be an appropriate body to undertake the future planning of the area in accordance with the Localism Act. The Neighbourhood Plan group with the support of the Local Planning Authority are an appropriate body to consider which are the most sustainable sites in the area and ensure that the social issues in the area are fully taken into account in the sustainable community of the future.
Housing supply considerations In spite of recent consents there remains a shortfall in housing supply for the district. The requirement for maintaining a 5 year supply (plus buffer) is a rolling target which is imposed on Councils through central government policy. The spatial strategy set out by the JCS and reflected in the IHPS is to distribute new housing throughout the key settlements within the district outside of the SDNP in accordance with the settlement hierarchy as follows:
Alton – 700 new homes Horndean - 700 new homes Clanfield – 200 new homes Liphook – 175 new homes Four Marks/South Medstead - 175 new homes Rowlands Castle - 150 new homes Other villages outside the South Downs National Park – 150 new homes
This strategy focuses the majority of new housing to Alton, Horndean and Clanfield, which are classified as market town, large local service centre and small local service centre respectively. Smaller settlements such as Four Marks/South Medstead which is defined as a Small Local Service Centre are intended to accommodate a proportionate amount of housing. The JCS observes that this scale of settlement will;
“have a more limited range of services but are suitable locations to accommodate some new development. These centres will have different roles depending on their size, but they will all play an important part in the life of their communities. They will be maintained to ensure that they provide basic food and grocery shopping, supported by a limited choice and range of other shops plus a range of non-retail services and community uses. Modest development to meet local needs for housing, employment, community services and infrastructure will secure their continuing vitality and ensure thriving communities.”
So far planning permissions have been granted, or resolved to be granted, for a potential total of 191 dwellings under the IHPS in Four Marks / South Medstead.
Page 27 This includes:
• 38 dwellings on land to the west of Lymington Bottom Road • 69 units on land to the west of Lymington Farm Industrial Estate, Lymington Bottom Road, Four Marks • 3 units on land to rear of Woodfield, Windsor Road in Medstead • 80 units on land at Friars Oak Farm, Boyneswood Road, Medstead (resolved to be granted pending the outcome of whether this will be called in by the Secretary of State) • 1 unit on land west of High Mead, Boyneswood Lane, Medstead
It is only right that the 80 units at Friars Oak Farm be included in the current total of committed new homes in Four Marks/South Medstead. The Planning Committee considered the planning merits of that case at their meeting on 26 June this year and resolved to grant planning permission subject to the completion of the S106 Legal agreement. The Council has therefore declared its position with regards to that development, and whilst the DCLG has subsequently issued a holding direction preventing the Council from issuing the planning permission, the Council's position on the proposal has not altered. Furthermore, there currently is no decision from the Secretary of State to the contrary nor any guarantee that the application will in fact be called in. In the interim, the Council's decision to resolve to grant permission has not changed and, as such, the 80 units should remain included in the total number of additional homes that have been granted or resolved to be granted.
An added reason is that the pre-existing achievement of the 175 units was a significant material planning consideration in the Planning Committee's subsequent decisions to refuse permission for other residential developments proposed in Four Marks / South Medstead (see planning history earlier in report). It would be unreasonable and unjust to allow the 80 units to now be discounted.
The identified figure of 175 for the settlement is, therefore, already surpassed.
However, there are notable benefits of securing further affordable housing provision to meet identified local needs. In this respect the Housing Officer is supportive in principle and points to present levels of need. However, as the scheme would do no more than comply with the policies in the JCS on the provision of affordable housing, the respective contribution does not add significant weight arguments relating to housing need generally. Simply put, any residential scheme should now be expected, unless otherwise justified, to meet the 40% threshold while the IHPS seeks this level as a minimum.
Overall, the scheme would make a contribution to housing supply requirements and towards addressing the shortfall within the district. Addressing this shortfall, and the contribution this site would make towards doing so, should be afforded weight in the decision as to whether this proposal is sustainable development.
Page 28 2. Principle of development
As mentioned earlier, the development must have regard to the NPPF. In the absence of a five year housing land supply, neither the recently adopted Joint Core Strategy nor the saved policies of the local plan can be relied upon in determining the principle of development for applications for housing. Instead, as with similar recent applications, it should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as the NPPF sets out at paragraph 14. which confirms that where decisions are to be taken and the relevant policies of the development plan are out-of-date permission should be granted unless:
- Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or
- Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted
As there are no specific policies in the NPPF to indicate that such development should necessarily be restricted, the first point is perhaps the most pertinent. The recognised benefits of the proposal include the provision of housing, both market and affordable, for which there is an identified need. These are clear economic and social benefits. For permission to be refused, the adverse impacts of the development need to significantly and demonstrably outweigh these benefits. Quite apart from the consideration of any adverse impact being caused to local character, ecology, flood risk and transport, which will be considered later in the report, there are three preliminary issues to assess in determining the principle of development. i) The adopted housing figure for Four Marks/South Medstead ii) Is the proposal sustainable development e.g. Locational suitability, impact on economic, environmental and social factors. iii) Consideration of alternative sites
The adopted housing figure for Four Marks/South Medstead It should not be ignored that in meeting the district wide housing need up to 2028, the identified housing distribution for this settlement is a minimum of 175 units. This figure is set out in the spatial strategy of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) and reflected in the IHPS. This amount of housing is based on, and proportionate to, the identified settlement hierarchy set out in the JCS. Four Marks/South Medstead is identified as constituting a Level 3 settlement - a small local service centre having a more limited range of services but can accommodate some new development.
The adoption of the JCS in May this year followed a Local Plan Inspector's thorough testing of the housing figures for soundness. Consequently, the distribution of housing numbers for each settlement carries significant weight in the determination of a planning application for residential development under the IHPS.
Page 29 Whilst the JCS establishes the settlement distributions as minimums, the IHPS establishes them as maximums for the very reason that the IHPS purpose is to provide a five year land supply within a short period of time (approximately two years). Having significantly more than 175 units front loaded within the first couple of years of a plan period up to 2028 would not be a sustainable form of development, as it could have the potential to fundamentally change the established scale of settlement within a very short space of time. Four Marks/South Medstead has been characterised as a place of housing growth for commuters where facilities have not kept pace and the social cohesion of the village has primarily been around what many people feel to be fruitless attempts to control what seems like continual growth. On top of this, the necessary infrastructure to support additional development is unlikely to be operational to coincide with the arrival of the new occupants. Therefore, significant weight should be attached to the relevance of 175 as a guideline figure appropriate to the settlement of Four Marks/South Medstead. The current proposal would result in additional strain on local infrastructure and could have a negative social impact on the sustainability of the settlement. Remembering also that permissions to date, including the resolution to grant permission for 80 dwellings at Friars Oak Farm off Boyneswood Road, amount to 191 units.
Locational suitability In terms of the location, the application site is directly adjacent to the settlement policy boundary (SPB) to its north and east. JCS Policy CP19 seeks to control development outside SPBs. Nonetheless, for the purposes of the IHPS, officers consider that this site is compliant in terms of its position relative to the SPB.
The site is relatively distant to the limited facilities in Four Marks/South Medstead which are approximately 1.3km away. However, with the average human walking speed being 5km/hr, this would mean a 15 minute walk to the shops which, not withstanding the intervening changing topography, is not an unrealistic distance to walk. Acknowledging that some residents of the development may choose to drive such a distance, particularly with a hill involved, on balance the distance does not make the site unsustainable, especially as the site is close to regular bus services running along Winchester Road. It does, however, reduce the amount of weight that can be attributed to the site's relatively sustainable position.
Consideration of alternative sites Objectors believe that alternatives, with preference to “more appropriate Brownfield sites inside the settlement area” or other SHLAA/current application proposals should be considered. The IHPS echoes the strategy pursued by the Joint Core Strategy which will in any event seek to allocate (predominantly greenfield) land to secure housing targets. In respect of alternative sites, there are two other applications offering development totalling 62 units presently lodged with the authority (as set out in the Planning History section above). Each case must be assessed on its merits, and for the purposes of the NPPF and development plan there is no sequential assessment requirement for housing sites when determining planning applications.
Notwithstanding that other sites in the area may be preferential in one or other respects, it falls to the Council to determine this application on its individual merits having regard to all material considerations.
Page 30 It is acknowledged, however, that the consultation event resulted in a strong preference for this site to be developed and also for a site that the planning committee has resolved to grant permission planning (Friars Oak Farm). The LIPS document is a useful indicator of public preferences for development sites and infrastructure needs. However, it does not form part of the statutory development plan and as such no more than modest weight can be attributed to it in the determination of any planning application. This is perhaps evident from the weight of subsequent objection received for this planning application.
However, there is a broader point to raise in relation to the suitability of alternative sites and the achievement of a district wide five year land supply. Officers readily accept that a fundamental principle of Planning is that each case has to be considered on its own merits and that there is no requirement for an applicant to demonstrate theirs is the most sustainable location or development. However, it is the case that the JCS and IHPS primarily focus development towards the market towns and large scale service centres for obvious reasons (existing infrastructure, potentially more public transport connectivity, less scope to detrimentally impact on an established scale of settlement by readily absorbing a proportionately higher number of units). The Council has received, and is currently considering, planning applications for large residential development in these much larger settlements, which it could be argued are best placed to accommodate such developments in pursuit of a five year housing land supply. The totality of unit numbers proposed in these proposals combine to significantly exceed the current deficit in the Council's five year housing land supply. Whilst there is no guarantee that they will all be approved, it is worthy of note that greater numbers within larger settlements are soon to be determined by the Council. It is considered that this further reduces the need to significantly oversail the figure of 175 for Four Marks / South Medstead by what would be 152 units (136 from this application) which would equate to 87% over and above the identified figure for the settlement.
Whilst this site and the development proposed would contribute towards a district wide five year housing land supply it would have a disproportionate impact in the short term on the sustainability of Four Marks/South Medstead. The principle of development, to the extent that it would far exceed the identified and proportionate housing number for Four Marks/South Medstead, is not therefore accepted.
3. Deliverability
While the NPPF requires LPAs to maintain a five year supply of housing sites (plus an additional buffer) it clarifies that;
“To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans.”
Page 31 Nonetheless, paragraph 5.2 of the IHPS states that “The Council wants new homes delivered in the right places to meet the needs of the District the emphasis will be on sites being put forward under this Interim Policy Statement approach being deliverable at the time that they are put forward. Therefore detailed applications would be preferred and be accompanied by evidence of deliverability.
They should not, for example, be dependent upon delivery of significant off-site infrastructure; and should be fully in the applicant’s control. Those proposing development of a site are therefore encouraged to demonstrate a strong desire and willingness to develop it in the short term, with the necessary evidence to back up such statements.”
There are known capacity issues with utilities provision on this part of the settlement. Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this development and has recommended that a 'Grampian style' condition be imposed requiring details of a drainage strategy to be provided for consideration, prior to any commencement of development. However, the applicant has stated that foul drainage will be pumped to the existing pumping station in the adjacent residential development to the east. In principle, no concerns have been raised to this method of foul water disposal.
4. Mix and type of housing
The scheme includes housing with a residential density of approximately 23 dwellings per hectare (excluding the open space on the southern part of the site). This is naturally higher than the loose knit properties to the north, south and west but comparable with the recently developed land to the east.
In terms of the content of the amended scheme, the development includes just under 40% affordable housing which reflects local needs in terms of unit sizes, and tenures. To this end it meets the Council's Housing Development Officer ’s preferences and he is, therefore, supportive of the scheme. The affordable mix includes 6 x 1 bedroom flats, 6 x 1 bedroom maisonettes, 26 x 2 bedroom houses, 14 x 3 bedroom houses and 2 x 4 bedroom house. The tenure split would secure the affordable units as shared ownership and affordable rent.
Market housing also provides a good range of unit sizes; 13 x 2 bedroom houses, 39 x 3 bedroom houses, 27 x 4 bedroom houses and 3 x 5 bedroom houses. The overall mix by size is;
12 x 1 bed (9%) 39 x 2 bed (29%) 53 x 3 bedroom (39%) 29 x 4 bedroom (21%) 3 x 5 bedroom (2%)
This mix provides a good range of housing, which is geared towards a high proportion of smaller and medium sized units. The proposals is for a mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached properties and meets the goals of JCS policy CP10.
Page 32 It also reflects the goals of the recent Strategic Housing Market Assessment, which identifies strong demographic pressures towards decreasing average household size, and an ageing population adding demand for downsizing. This is a material benefit that adds some weight in favour of the scheme.
5. Impact on the character of the area
One of the core planning principles listed in the NPPF says that planning should “take account of the different role and character of different areas, and this includes recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it” (paragraph 17).
Winchester Road (A31) in Four Marks contains a number of relatively recent residential developments, either fronting the main road or as backland forms of development. In terms of the local area, the site immediately to the east of the application site is one such recent development and could be argued to be the boundary between the edge of the built settlement and the open countryside beyond. Whilst there are sporadic low density houses to the west and south of the application site, Winchester Road becomes increasingly rural the further west you travel.
Clearly, the proposal would represent a significant change in the nature and appearance of the land and the assessment to be made is whether the impact on the land, would be harmful to the local area.
The IHPS (criterion 10) favours an approach whereby development maximises the potential of a site and schemes should make efficient use of the site. However, there is also a need for proposals to be balanced against criterion 11 of the IHPS, which requires proposals to demonstrate a density and design approach that is sensitive to the local character. In this context, the number of dwellings proposed and the layout of the development would certainly result in a more suburban form on what is a rural piece of land. However, it would share similarities with the development to the east in terms of layout and density and actually contain significantly more open space than adjacent.
The design and layout of the development would include landscaped buffer strips on its boundaries and a large central amenity space, helping to break up the expanse of built form. The southern portion of the site would be given over to public open space, a more formal recreational sports pitch and children's play space (LEAP). The majority of the dwellings would be set back from the estate roads and the associated parking would be incorporated into the development rather than being isolated on prominent positions. In general, the scheme represents a good design and its spacious approach would ensure it would not be an overdevelopment of the site, which could otherwise harm the local character. The Council's Landscape Officer has considered the layout and has no objection subject to additional planting on the land.
Page 33 Whilst the scheme would have an impact on the open land and would be at odds with the loose knit dwellings to the west, for the reasons given above, the development would not lead to a harmful impact on the wider landscape.
As such, the development accords with policy CP20 in this respect.
6. Access, movement and highway safety
Vehicular access to the site is proposed via a new access directly off the A31. Hampshire County Council, as the County Highway Authority (CHA), has assessed the access arrangements and likely net additional traffic generation resulting from this development.
Whilst the site is on the edge of the village, there are a range of facilities within a 2km walking distance from the site which the CHA consider to be a reasonable walking and cycling distance. A bus service (Service 64) operates along the A31 frontage to the site providing a 30minute frequency service between Winchester and Alton. Facilities to connect the site to local facilities are not comprehensive and improvements to encourage sustainable access would be required to ensure the site offered a sustainable transport choice and alternative to the car.
In terms of personal injury accidents, the CHA has updated the data submitted by the applicant in their Transport Assessment and confirms that between 2008 - 2014, there have been a total of 11 accidents over the latest period for which accident statistics are available. Further consideration of the pattern of accidents identifies that there are no overriding safety concerns in the vicinity of the site that are likely to be exacerbated by the proposals.
For traffic generation, the proposed development is forecast to generate 75 vehicle movements in the AM peak hour (08.00 - 09.00am) and 85 trips in the PM peak hour (17:00 - 18:00). This is based on the TRICS database, which is a nationally established database of traffic surveys from development sites. In terms of the impact of this additional traffic, the majority of traffic (80%) that would enter and leave the site would do so to and from the north of the site, towards Alton and Guildford. The remaining 20% of traffic routing to the A31 south (to and from Winchester).
In addition to the level of traffic that the TA has estimated will be generated by the proposed development, the assessment has also has made an allowance for traffic growth on the local network from trends in increased car ownership and from additional traffic from other local developments, through the use of growth factors taken from the TEMPRO database. (industry standard approach). The results of the modelling indicate that traffic generated by the proposed development, as well as local traffic growth by 2019 would be well within capacity of the site access, with no queuing occurring on any of the arms of the junction.
In order to deliver the junction, the hatching at the end of the dual carriageway section of the A31 would be re-worked to provide a central turning pocket, which will enable right-turning traffic to wait for gaps in southbound traffic, therefore, enabling free-flow of northbound traffic.
Page 34
In addition to the assessment of the performance of the site access junction outlined above, the Transport Assessment considered the impact of the development traffic on the Lymington Bottom Road junction. An appraisal was made of the level of traffic that will be generated by the development through the junction and the impact that this level of traffic will have. It is shown that the additional traffic generated by the development will have a relatively small impact on the operation of the junction, adding generally under 5% to traffic flows on each arm. The CHA considers this level of traffic is likely to be indiscernible from daily traffic flow fluctuations, and is not likely to create a ‘severe’ impact on the safety or operation of the junction.
In terms of parking provision, the adopted parking standards will be met together with a number of visitor parking bays dispersed amongst the development. A Travel Plan has been submitted with the application which includes a number of suggested measures that seek to deliver a reduction in car usage at the site. The Travel Plan would be secured as part of any Section 106 Agreement.
Finally, in order to facilitate movements by non-car modes and given the location of the development relative to local services and facilities, contributions will need to be made for improvements to local public transport connections and to the local pedestrian and cycle network. The East Hampshire District Transport Statement, adopted by the County Council in September 2012, identifies a number of transport improvement schemes in the vicinity of the site which could be funded by these contributions in order to directly mitigate the impacts of the additional travel demands likely to be generated by the proposed development. These identified improvements include:
• Provision of crossing points on the A31 through Four Marks • Installation of a footway along Lymington Bottom Road • Junction improvements including a pedestrian crossing at A31/Lymington Bottom, Four Marks junction • Investigate pedestrian improvements for crossing the A31 and Telegraph Road including possible signalisation • Improved cycle storage at the village centre • Improvements on routes to local schools, including delivery of school travel plans
The site access proposals (and associated off-site works) have been closely considered by the County Highway Authority have been shown to operate well in future traffic conditions, and are shown to comply with the appropriate design standards. The County Highway Authority concludes that from the information submitted no objection to the development is raised. With conditions in place, the proposal accords with policy CP31 of the Joint Core Strategy.
7. Impact on neighbouring amenity The main impacts on neighbouring amenity relate to the proximity of dwellings to existing dwellings on the north eastern boundary, the western boundary and part of the eastern boundary.
Page 35
Following concerns raised by the case officer relating to the impact the development would have on the living conditions of occupants of properties to the north-east, amended plans were received addressing the concerns. Dwellings would, though, be introduced in relatively close proximity to the north-eastern boundary with properties that front Winchester Road. However, the back-to-back separation distance would be an acceptable minimum of 23 metres. Screening does exist on this boundary although not comprehensively. Supplementary planting would be required by condition.
Similarly, the boundary to the east is only partially screened by trees and whilst the closest separation distance would be 25 metres, additional planting would be required to make the scheme acceptable for occupants living to the east. The low number of detached houses that lie beyond Barn lane to the west would be a minimum distance of 30 metres away from dwellings on the western side of the site. Again, this distance is sufficient to avoid harmful overlooking or overbearance.
There is one dwelling to the south west boundary of the site which lies to the east of Barn Lane and would have a close relationship to the development in locational terms. Whilst soft landscaping exists on the boundaries of this dwelling, this would need to be enhanced through additional planting to minimise the impact of the pumping station to the south (35 metres away) and from the houses proposed to the north and east, the closest being 30 metres away.
In summary, whilst perhaps the most impact would be experienced by existing residents to the north of the site, with suitable conditions to control additional planting on the boundary and the removal of permitted development rights, the development could be accommodated on the site without resulting in a harmful impact on existing residential amenity. As such, the proposal accords with policy CP27 of the Joint Core Strategy.
8. Drainage, flood risk and foul water
All areas not designated as Flood Zones 2 or 3 are designated as Flood Zone 1. The application site is within Flood Zone 1 (Low Probability). This zone comprises land assessed as having a less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of river or sea flooding in any year (<0.1per cent). However, for development proposals on sites of one hectare (or above) the vulnerability to flooding from other sources as well as from river and sea flooding, and the potential to increase flood risk elsewhere through the addition of hard surfaces and the effect of the new development on surface water run-off, should be incorporated in a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).
Some residents in the local area have raised concerns relating to flooding. Whilst the proposed development cannot be expected to solve drainage problems that already exist, it should certainly not exacerbate them.
A Flood Risk Assessment, geotechnical site investigation and drainage strategy have been submitted.
Page 36
The Council's drainage consultant, who is not aware of any historic flooding problems on this site, has assessed the submitted information and considers it to be satisfactory. The proposed development will dramatically increase surface water run-off which will need to be controlled on-site using infiltration techniques. The geology was found to be a 10m deep superficial layer of relatively impermeable clay with flints overlaying chalk and therefore, will require the use of deep bore soakaways in order to provide satisfactory infiltration. He concludes that the drainage strategy and layout are satisfactory in principle subject to further details being sought by condition.
The Environment Agency has assessed the proposal with regards to the site's location within a groundwater source protection zone and also due to the proposed use of deep bore soakways. They raise no objection subject to the adherence to a condition protecting the sensitive chalk groundwater.
Foul water Planning Practice Guidance replaced circular 03/99 in respect of wastewater treatment and hierarchy. It advises that “the first presumption is to provide a system of foul drainage discharging into a public sewer in consultation with the sewerage company of the area”. It notes that “the timescales for works to be carried out by the sewerage company do not always fit with development needs” and that in such cases LPAs will want to consider development phasing. In most cases provisions can be secured and controlled, as suggested in this case by Thames Water, by way of a ‘Grampian’ style condition. This can ensure either that development does not commence or that no units are occupied (depending on the applicable circumstances), until a scheme of foul drainage has been approved and implemented. This would be satisfactory to secure implementation and is suitable where the outcome expected of the condition has a reasonable likelihood of being achieved.
In this case, the Council must also have regard to the implications of using such a planning condition. In seeking to speed up house building the IHPS stipulates that planning permissions will be granted for a condensed 2 year period. Yet if a grampian condition were to significantly delay the implementation of the scheme then it could add uncertainty to delivery within such a time frame, and could undermine the contribution of the scheme to local and district housing supply in the near term. If this were the case, the Council would need to consider the necessary infrastructure as ‘significant’ for the purposes of the IHPS. It is important to consider the feasibility of such works and the prospective timetable for implementing them.
The foul drainage strategy proposes the following:
• Foul drainage to drain via gravity to new foul sewers located within the roadway • The foul sewers will gravitate to a new foul pumping station located in the south west corner of the site • The new foul pumping station will pump to the existing pump station located in the adjacent development to the east of the site • Telemetry between the two pumping stations will be linked to ensure the flows from the
Page 37 existing pumping station do not exceed present design flows into the foul drainage network along Winchester Road (A31) • Upon completion, foul sewers and pumping station will be offered to Thames Water for adoption
Thames Water has not raised an objection but has requested a grampian condition to cover the connection to the public sewer. Such a condition will prevent the development from commencing until a drainage strategy detailing on-off site works has been submitted and agreed by the council and sewerage undertaker. Should this not be agreed, then the proposed development cannot take place.
9. Impact on trees and ecology
Whilst there are no protected trees within the site, it needs to be assessed the extent to which the development would impact on the local trees that exist.
With the exception of a large part of the western boundary of the site with Barn Lane, the site is bordered on its boundaries by a tree belt of varying height and density. The development would retain the vast majority of the existing tree belts with only a small group of low category trees will need to be removed to facilitate the new access into the site off the A31.
The applicant submitted an Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan which was assessed by the Council's Arboricultural Officer. Whilst suggesting some improvements to the type of species to be used and their location, he raised no objection to the proposal subject to adherence to the tree protection plan by condition.
In terms of ecology, the presence of protected species is a material planning consideration which needs to be addressed prior to any permission being granted. The NPPF states the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible.
The County Ecologist assessed the proposal and considered the submitted ecological information (bats, reptiles, dormice and badgers) to be of a good standard. However, clarification in respect to some ecological mitigation measures was sought in relation to Hazel Dormice known to be present in the boundary hedges. Whilst the proposed dormouse mitigation plan seeks to provide a considerable amount of compensatory hedgerow buffer vegetation, this will not be effective dormouse habitat for many years. Further clarification was sought on the 5 metre buffers strip in terms of where this would be measured from and also whether the western boundary (currently mainly open in parts) can provide an ecologically- functional boundary.
The applicant has provided further information and clarification which has satisfied the County Ecologist's queries. Consequently, detailed ecological mitigation measures can be controlled through a condition and, with this, the proposal accords with policy CP21 of the Joint Core Strategy .
Page 38
10. Sustainable construction and energy efficiency
Under JCS policy CP24, the development will have to meet Code 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, plus an additional 10% in the way of energy consumption / efficiency savings or equivalent, and a waste management area on site for refuse/recycling facilities.
The application has been supported by an Energy Strategy which sets out the options for reducing the energy consumption from the scheme as a whole. The energy statement concludes that a combination of techniques to increase building efficiency and produce energy from renewable sources can be applied (including photovoltaic arrays). This could be appropriately secured by way of planning condition to ensure the development meets the requirements of Policy CP24.
Policy CP11 of the JCS seeks the provision of Lifetime Homes Standards. An appropriate condition would be required if permission was granted.
11. Infrastructure and developer contributions
The three tests as set out in Regulation 122(2) require S106 agreements to be:
(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
As the application proposes the provision of 136 additional residential units, in order for the development to be acceptable in planning terms, a S106 agreement is required to secure the following:
− Integrated transport measures (£569,134) − Environmental improvements (£75,888) − Community worker (£34,000) − Affordable housing element shortfall (0.4 of a dwelling shortfall = £25,232) − Five per cent administration and monitoring fee
The HCC Education officer has responded and advised contributions to be necessary towards supporting and expanding primary school facilities. A contribution per unit (excluding 1 bedroom dwellings) is sought and would provide a substantial but commensurate contribution to local requirements, in line with County Council guidance on contributions - £687,752 towards primary places.
A S106 legal agreement covering any planning permission would also secure the following:
- Provision and maintenance in perpetuity of landscape planting and ecology buffers - On-site provision of public open space and maintenance in perpetuity - Secure and monitor the travel plan
Page 39 - Matters of general management and maintenance in perpetuity of other common areas including of the access and estate roads, surface water drainage - Tenure split for affordable housing, - Occupancy criteria stipulating a cascade for occupancy of affordable rent units within the settlement, then the parishes of Medstead and Four Marks and then wider to the District.
In addition to the above, the applicant has expressed a desire to contribute towards local community facilities. Whilst no formal submission has been made by the developer or indeed requested by the Council, it has been suggested by the applicant that the development could fund or construct a sports/scout hall. This suggestion refers to an unimplemented planning permission for a sports/scout hall submitted by the parish council and approved in December 2012. The offer is broadly in recognition that other recent schemes have not made any contributions in this regard and would give something back to the community in response to an apparent shortfall in sports and community space in the settlement. There has been mention that the cost of providing the facility would be in the region of £2.2 million.
The applicant has forwarded their legal opinion which makes it clear that under the CIL Regulations any provision must be necessary to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms but, also, that such provision be fairly and reasonably related to the development. However, they comment that it is not unlawful to offer (and deliver) more than is necessary, but it is unlawful for the decision maker to take such an offer into account in granting planning permission. If it is accepted that there must be additional space/facilities provided, the applicant's legal opinion states that this will not occur if the current scheme only makes a contribution as the sports/scout hall would remain no more than an aspiration. In this context, their legal opinion concludes that it would be lawful to take its actual provision into account and to accord it significant weight.
In response to this, officers would comment that developer contributions should focus on the need generated by the resulting development and a proposed development should not be expected to address an existing local deficit in services or infrastructure. Consequently, the purpose of developer contributions is to make a development acceptable and therefore overcome any other planning objections. This will be weighed up in the conclusion below.
Notwithstanding this matter, no agreement on the required contributions has been entered into and so an objection on these grounds is raised. As such, the proposal does not accord with policy CP13, CP18, CP31 and CP32 of the Joint Core Strategy.
12. Response to parish/town council comments
The concerns raised by Four Marks Parish Council have been noted and carefully considered in this report. One procedural issue that needs clarification relates to the parish council's request for a committee site visit. This has taken place and enabled members of the Planning Committee to assess the impact of the development.
Page 40
Conclusion
The NPPF advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Any adverse impacts of the proposal would need to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
In terms of benefits, it is acknowledged that the proposal will provide a significant number of dwellings in the district to boost housing supply and contribute towards addressing the deficit in the Council's five year housing land supply. Furthermore, 40 per cent of these units will be affordable, and these will be provided in a mix of unit sizes to help meet the need for family housing in the Four Marks/South Medstead area. The other contributions to be sought under a S106 legal agreement arising from the needs directly generated by this development would be towards, highway improvements, local environmental improvements, improving education provision and community workers. These are all positive benefits that will result from the development. However, the S106 legal agreement has not been completed.
In terms of harmful impacts of the development, regard is given to the effects of the proposal on top of the already committed housing numbers that have either been approved or resolved to be granted for this settlement and the impact this would have on the infrastructure of the small local service centre. The development would take new housing numbers on 'greenfield' sites in the settlement to 327. The local plan inspector identified 175 as a minimum figure for the settlement over the plan period (to 2028) and it is considered that such an over-supply (by 87%) at an early stage in the plan period is not a sustainable approach to development, bearing in mind pressure on utilities as well as the social dimension of sustainability. Applications currently under consideration by the Council, focused on more sustainable settlements ie market towns and larger local service centres, have the potential to far exceed the deficit and buffer required to achieve a five-year housing land supply.
Whilst this parcel of land has limited intrinsic character and beauty, it does have an important role in providing an open area of green buffer space set amongst a predominantly residential land use to the east. Developing this area of open land would have a considerable impact on the open and undeveloped character of the land. However, the degree to which the rural character will be harmed by the development would be reduced by the retention of the tree belt that borders the site and the limited views of the site in the wider area. Therefore, only limited weight is attributed to the harm to landscape character.
In terms of the applicant's offer of constructing or funding the provision of the permitted sports/scout hall and the weight to be given to this, it is worth reflecting upon the results of the community feedback from the LIPS exercise carried out in May this year. At these two feedback sessions, whilst there was support for community facilities, it was overwhelmingly clear that the public's preference was for infrastructure to address flooding, telecoms, water pressure and sewerage problems.
The offer to provide a sports/scout hall would not address the primary needs outlined by local residents or the main deficiencies in shops and services to support additional housing.
Page 41
Consequently, this offer of potentially providing significantly more than what would be expected from such a development in the form of a sports/scout hall does not overcome the main objections to the scheme and carries limited weight in support of the proposal.
The benefits of housing provision (including affordable dwellings) in meeting the district wide shortfall are clearly outweighed by the adverse impacts identified in this report.
RECOMMENDATION
REFUSAL for the following reasons:
1 The proposed development, by virtue of the committed number of additional dwellings already approved, or resolved to be granted, under the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement for this settlement, would result in a disproportionate number of additional homes above and beyond the identified housing figure for Four Marks/South Medstead as set out in the adopted Joint Core Strategy and Interim Housing Policy Statement. Having regard to the deficiencies and inadequacies in existing local infrastructure and services, this would have an adverse impact on the sustainability of the settlement so early in the plan period. As such, the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policies CP1, CP2 and (non housing target aspects of) CP10 of the Joint Core Strategy, and the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014.
2 The level of development proposed would not be consistent with maintaining and enhancing the character of the settlement but instead would place undue pressure on the limited range of local services in this small local service centre. This would be at odds with the spatial strategy for the district which seeks to reinforce a settlement's role and function. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policy CP1, CP2 and (non housing target aspects of) CP10 of the Joint Core Strategy and the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014.
3 No provision has been made towards integrated transportation measures with the proposal, contrary to Policies CP31 and CP32 of the Joint Core Strategy, the Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014 and the Council's 'Guide to Developers' Contributions and Other Planning Requirements'.
4 No provision has been made towards environmental improvements, contrary to Policy CP32 of the Joint Core Strategy, the Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014 and the Council's 'Guide to Developers' Contributions and Other Planning Requirements'.
5 No provision has been made for a financial contribution to be made towards education facilities within Four Marks where there is a recognised
Page 42 shortage of primary school spaces, contrary to Policy CP32 of the Joint Core Strategy, the Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014 and the Council's 'Guide to Developers' Contributions and Other Planning Requirements'.
6 Without a Section 106 legal agreement or unilateral undertaking from the applicant agreeing to the following additional provisions (set out in full in the officers report) an objection is raised in accordance with policy CP13, CP18 and CP32 of the Joint Core Strategy and the Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014:
• Securing at least 40% affordable housing provision on site • Contribution towards a community project worker • Five per cent contribution towards administration and monitoring fee • Monitoring of the travel plan
Informative Notes to Applicant:
1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach and works with applicants/agents on development proposals in a manner focused on solutions by:
• offering a pre-application advice service,
• updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,
• by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter.
In this instance the applicant entered into pre-application advice and has been updated of issues during the course of the planning application.
CASE OFFICER: Nick Upton 01730 234232 ———————————————————————————————————————
Page 43 SECTION 1 Item 1 Land at Winchester Road (Adjoining 173), Winchester Road, Four Marks, Alton
Proposed site layout
Page 44
Item No.:02
Page 45
The information, recommendations, and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.
PROPOSAL Four detached dwellings LOCATION: Land north of Towngate Farm House, Wield Road, Medstead, Alton, GU34 5LY REFERENCE : 50313 PARISH:Medstead APPLICANT: Crayfern Homes Ltd CONSULTATION EXPIRY : 30 August 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY : 04 September 2014 COUNCILLORS: Cllr M C Johnson MBE, Cllr I Thomas SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
This application is included on the agenda as it is a departure from the adopted Local Plan and is being considered under the Interim Housing Policy Statement.
Site
The site comprises a field adjoining development on the western edge of Medstead, on the northern side of Wield Road. Hedgerows bound the site to the road and the west and a post and rail fence marks the northern extent of the site. The land is flat but on an elevated plateau an open to distant views to the north. The southern side of Wield Road comprises linear development of detached properties set in spacious plots and this pattern extends approximately 500m north-west of the application site.
Development
Access to the dwellings would be via an existing field gate at a dog-leg in the road; the four properties would then be accessed by a service road. The dwellings would comprise two- four bedroomed houses book-ended by two, two-bedroomed bungalows. The plan proposes an additional area of landscaping fronting the buildings, in addition to the retention of the roadside hedge. It is proposed that the buildings are timber boarded (with brick to the ground floor of plot 2) under slate and tiled roofs.
Relevant Planning History
25979/003 Change of use of part of field to form new vehicular access - Refused - Appeal Dismissed - July 2007
Other major housing applications in Medstead (excluding the south Medstead area) :
55010 OUTLINE - 23 Dwellings with associated access road and parking - Refused August 2014
Page 46 55010/001 OUTLINE - 17 Dwellings with associated access road and parking - Refused August 2014 22010/002 OUTLINE - 10 Dwellings - Current application
Development Plan Policies and Proposals
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014)
CP1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development CP2 - Spatial Strategy CP10 - Spatial strategy for housing CP14 - Affordable housing for rural communities CP16 - Protection and provision of social infrastructure CP18 - Provision of open space, sport and recreation and built facilities CP19 - Development in the countryside CP20 - Landscape CP21 - Biodiversity CP24 - Sustainable construction CP25 - Flood Risk CP27 - Pollution CP29 - Design CP31 - Transport CP32 - Infrastructure
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (2006)
T2 - Public Transport Provision and Improvement T3 - Pedestrians and Cyclists P7 - Contaminated Land H14 - Other Housing Outside Settlement Policy Boundaries
Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Village Design Statement - Medstead - A Vision for the Future - non statutory planning guidance that has been the subject of public consultation and therefore is a material planning consideration.
Medstead Parish Plan 2008
Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments
Drainage Consultant - The site is located in Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding) and I am not aware of any historic flooding issues affecting the site. The drainage strategy for surface water indicates cellular soakaways and permeable paving, based on site investigation results. This is satisfactory in principle subject to detail design. Foul drainage will discharge to a sewage treatment plant, which again is satisfactory, subject to detail and EA consent.
Page 47
No objections subject to satisfactory drainage which can be covered by standard conditions.
Arboricultural Officer - No objection providing a condition can be applied that requires all work to be carried out in strict accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan. A condition should also be applied that requires the position of any underground services to be submitted and approved prior to commencement. Ideally the services should not be placed within the precautionary area marked in yellow on the Tree protection Plan. If there is no other option then a separate method statement should be submitted, approved prior to commencement. This should detail precisely how the services will be installed and, once approved, should also be strictly adhered to.
Environmental Health - Contaminated Land - No objection subject to conditions.
County Ecologist - Whilst I do not have any overriding ecological concerns, I would request that further details are provided on the retention and ongoing maintenance of hedgerow habitats: this can be provided within a pre-commencement ecological mitigation plan.
The application is accompanied by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Phase 1 Habitat Survey, a Reptile Survey and a Bat Activity Survey which between them provide a generally sound assessment of the current ecological value of the application site.
The site comprises a single medium-sized field with associated boundary hedging, part of which is considered to be species-rich. There is limited potential for protected species to occur and in general I am content that the ecological constraints are limited: this is a small development within a single field.
I would however draw attention to the fact that hazel dormice are highly likely to occur within the field boundary hedgerows. I would suggest that the notion of sub-optimal habitat for hazel dormouse in the open Hampshire countryside (based on e.g. species composition and structural integrity) is tenuous and that recent evidence demonstrates that, particularly in the Medstead and Four Marks area, the species could potentially occur in any structured woody vegetation – evidence is mounting that this species will utilise a wide range of habitat types previously considered sub-optimal or unsuitable, and that habitat gaps are no significant barrier to movement. In this case, the boundary hedgerows are not to be impacted to any great degree and so impacts to this species (if indeed present) are unlikely. I would remind the applicant that should there be any amendments requiring hedgerow removal they should immediately seek the advice of an ecological consultant.
If you are minded to grant permission, could I suggest that ecological mitigation and enhancement measures are secured via a suitably-worded condition.
Highways Officer - Vehicular access to the site connects directly at the northern boundary of Wield Road. This section of Wield Road is subject to a speed limit of 30mph and most traffic approaching the access will be travelling at close to this speed. Therefore, to the east and west, visibility splays of 2.4m by 43m will be applicable. From my site visit, I note that these splays are achievable with only minor maintenance to the hedges necessary. A
Page 48 drawing has been submitted which shows the visibility splays, however it is unclear whether both splays have been taken to the nearside carriageway edge. A further drawing should be submitted to clarify this.
In line with East Hampshire District Council’s adopted parking standards, 2 parking spaces should be provided for every 2 bedroom dwelling and 3 spaces for every 4 bedroomed dwelling. The site plan shows that each property has a garage and I note these are of the correct internal dimensions to accommodate two vehicles. The highway authority recommends that double garages have internal dimensions of 6m by 6m and should be slightly longer if they are to incorporate secure cycle storage. Given the nature of a car barn and the internal dimensions of the double garage, it cannot be said that provision for the secure storage of cycles has been provided and I note no sheds have been shown in the rear gardens of any of the properties.
From the submitted drawings, it is not clear where the third parking space required for plots 2 and 3 will be located and I note an incomplete tracking drawing has been submitted, so it is not clear how each vehicle will manoeuvre in and out of the site. Wield Road is a ‘C’ class road and it is important to note that each vehicle should be able to enter and exit the highway in a forward gear.
Ideally, pedestrian facilities should be provided along Wield Road for those living at the proposed site; however the highway authority appreciates there is insufficient verge available for a footway to the east of the site and in any case, there are a number of properties along Wield Road already who do not have a footway link into the centre of Medstead. The most vulnerable users are likely to be children and they are likely to be driven to school.
It is important to note that it is unacceptable to discharge private water onto the public highway and into the drainage system of same. A cut-off drain should be provided at the boundary between the private development and public highway to mitigate this.
If consent is given a Transport Contribution will be required in relation to the proposed site. This equates to a contribution of £18,404.
Medstead Parish Council - Wishes to register their OBJECTION to this planning application.
The proposed site is situated at the beginning of the open countryside and any development will be an intrusion. This is yet another attempt to build a cul-de-sac development at the entrance to the village. This concept has been refused by the Planning Inspector on appeal in the case of Bona Vista, Roe Downs Road. Planning Officers have incorrectly tried to dismiss this precedent on the grounds of paragraph 49 NPPF. This paragraph refers only to planning policies of the authority not the adjudications of the Planning Inspectorate.
Paragraph 32 NPPF states that developments must provide that a 'safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people;' and there is a requirement in the JCS is to apply Manual for Streets principles. CP 31 states: 'c) ensure that highway design and associated signing meets the needs of vehicular traffic and the need for safety whilst also placing a high priority on meeting the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport
Page 49 users and without detriment to the quality of the environment'. The road from the entrance to the site into the centre of the village is unlit, has no footpath and narrows to just over 4 metres between Common Hill and the church hall, at which point there is a footpath into the centre of the village. It is impossible for any pedestrian to feel safe if they walk along this road as most of the time there is no refuge to avoid traffic. Much play has been made in the Design and Access Statement that the proposed bungalows will be suitable for existing elderly residents to downsize from larger properties; pedestrian access to the village centre is unsafe and unsuitable for their needs. In addition to normal domestic vehicles, the road is used large commercial and agricultural vehicles all of which pay little regard for the 30mph speed limit or the current experimental 20mph limit. The latter speed limit is temporary and HCC Highways Dept. has stated that it will be removed if there is a noticeable failure to comply.
It is also noted that the drawings show dwellings in the grounds of Barn End which do not exist or are they to be the basis of another application; if so the Parish Council questions whether they should not be treated as one application, a much larger scheme which would include the requirement for affordable housing.
Representations
41 letters of objection have been received, the majority of which refer to highway concerns including: a) Lack of a pavement and street lighting is a hazard; b) the site is too remote from the village amenities; c) additional traffic presents a hazard to other highway users including horse riders, cyclists and wheelchair users; d) access is on a bend; e) potential for on-street parking increases dangers on the highway; f) the development would be reliant on private motor cars, and g) the recently installed 20mph speed limit in Wield Road does not work.
Other issues of concern raised: h) Increasing urbanisation of a rural area; i) precedent for further development; j) proposal is contrary to the village survey that concluded with a resistance towards development in the north of the village; k) the site would be visible and harmful to the character of the area; l) additional surface drainage will accentuate local drainage issue; m) lack of mains drainage and poor water pressure; n) the village school is at capacity; o) the site gained no support in the recent LIPS event; p) there are inadequate services in the area to sustain more houses; q) the village has poor bus service.
The one letter received with 'other comments' refers to: a) The proposal is linear development consistent with the area and the Village Design Statement;
Page 50 b) the site was accepted as a SHLAA site; c) concerns over lack of pedestrian access are not valid as existing dwellings on Wield Road have this same access
Determining Issues
1. Principle of development 2. Impact on the landscape and character and appearance of the area 3. Design 4. Highways 5. Impact on amenity of adjoining property 6. Ecology 7. Impact on local amenities 8. Energy Conservation 9. Developer contributions
Planning Considerations
1. Principle of development
The key consideration in the determination of this planning application relates firstly to the principle of housing on this site, given its countryside position, having regard to the development plan and the lack of sufficient housing land supply within the district, which has led to the publication of the Interim Housing Policy Statement. As part of the consideration of the principle of development, aspects including the amount of housing proposed, the location and sustainability of the site, and the credentials of the application as a deliverable prospect are also key.
The application site falls outside of, but directly adjacent to, the Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) for Medstead, and thus falls within an area where a policy of restraint on new development in the countryside applies.
Policy CP2 (Spatial Strategy) directs new development growth to the most sustainable and accessible locations in the district and to make the best use of previously-developed land and buildings within existing built up areas. Policy CP10 (2) (Spatial Strategy for Housing) seeks the provision of new dwellings within defined settlement policy boundaries of towns and villages, where it is consistent with maintaining and enhancing their character and quality of life to meet the housing provision requirements of the development plan. Policy CP19 (Development in the Countryside) of the JCS states; “The approach to sustainable development in the countryside, defined as the area outside settlement policy boundaries, is to operate a policy of general restraint in order to protect the countryside for its own sake. The only development allowed in the countryside will be that with a genuine and proven need for a countryside location, such as is necessary for farming, forestry, or other rural enterprises (see Policy CP6).
However, it is pertinent to confirm that, based on the new housing requirements set out in the JCS, the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply (plus buffer) which is imposed on councils through Government policy. In the intervening period, until the Council has published a Local Plan Allocations document, the Council has adopted an
Page 51 Interim Housing Policy Statement (IHPS) to guide the release of greenfield sites directly adjacent to settlements with a defined SPB to assist in meeting the housing requirements of the District. The consideration of planning applications promoted through the IHPS are subject to specified criteria, set out as points (1) to (13) in the interim policy, being satisfied.
It is the intention of the IHPS in Criterion (2) to manage development outside settlement policy boundaries so that it is not allowed in the wrong locations nor inappropriate in scale or density relative to the size, role and character of the settlement in question. Medstead is ranked lowly (Level 5) in the hierarchy of settlements (as an 'other settlement with a settlement policy boundary'). The housing requirement for these smaller settlements north of the National Park is 150 dwellings and the Council has to date resolved to approve 22. Although the proposal makes a negligible contribution towards the district wide shortage, it does represent a proportionate development in relation to the host settlement and a step towards the 150. It should be noted that the dwellings proposed do not count towards the target for South Medstead/Four Marks which has a separate target.
In summary, whilst the site is outside the defined SPB for Medstead, thus not in accordance with the aims of policies CP2, CP11 and CP19 of the Joint Core Strategy, it falls within the context of the adopted IHPS and thus is accepted in principle, subject to consideration of the proposal against the detailed criteria of the IHPS, as well as other material planning considerations.
Local Interim Planning Statement The Council undertook public consultation events in the main settlements to seek views on sustainability issues affecting those settlements and which housing development sites might best meet local housing needs and place shaping aspirations. The results of the consultations in Four Marks and Medstead have been collated and combined with an overview of the sustainability profiles of each of the settlements in Local Interim Planning Statements (LIPS). The Four Marks and Medstead LIPS was adopted by Council at the meeting held on 19 June 2014 and is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.
The LIPS have two purposes; they provide a local supplement to the district-wide IHPS referred to above, additionally, the LIPS are an initial options consultation under Regulation 18 of the Planning Regulations, the results of which will feed into the Part 2 Local Plan: Allocations.
The LIPS for Four Marks and Medstead followed two consultation events. These events were held on Wednesday 14 May (5.30pm - 8pm) at the Four Marks Village Hall and on Thursday 15 May (2pm - 4.30pm) at Medstead Village Hall. Approximately 360 people attended the events. The consultation events followed a consistent format which is being used in the preparation of all the LIPS. This included the use of display boards containing a housing target map of the whole District, settlement profiles of Economy, Social facilities, demographics environmental assets, Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) maps and a large scale aerial map of the settlement area. Those attending the events were able to express a preferred SHLAA site choice and their preferred infrastructure needs as well as leaving comments and feedback. Planning and Community Officers were present to give advice and monitor the expressed preferences.
Page 52 As the events are an initial step in the Part 2 Local Plan Allocations work, for which there is no regulatory format to follow, they are valuable snapshots of community input. The progress on the Part 2 Local Plan will build on this together with future community consultation events and use the up-to-date evidence that exists for the JCS e.g. transport capacity, Sustainability Appraisal, Green Infrastructure Strategy, housing needs, environmental assets etc.
In terms of the housing site choices, there were a few options in the Medstead village settlement area which is an indicator of the popularity of the area with developers and the relatively unconstrained nature of the environment. The data collected shows that there was a clear preference in Medstead for site MED14, which formed part of two applications at Cedar Stables, both recently refused by the Planning Committee for 23 and 17 dwellings. The site MED1-4, subject to this application received no support, but it is notable that only two of the 12 sites received more than 3 'votes'.
Sustainability of the Location
Under Criterion (7) of the IHPS, development is required to provide a safe and accessible environment with good access to a range of transport modes, where it is possible to walk easily to a range of facilities. The site is on the edge of Medstead, which has a limited range of amenities, and whilst there is no footpath linking these to the site, having regard to the scale of the development proposed and the rural character of the village, this is not considered to be an impediment that counts against the application. Access to a larger range of facilities in Four Marks (1.6km) and Alton (6.4km) is likely to be by private transport, however, this must be balanced against the requirement set out in the IHPS and the Joint Core Strategy to provide 150 dwellings in the less sustainable settlements north of the National Park.
The site is 'included' as a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) site for 12 dwellings.
Overall the scheme would provide a contribution to housing supply requirements which is proportionate to the scale and role of the settlement. In accordance with the NPPF (para.14), permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would 'significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.' Addressing the shortfall in housing provision should be afforded weight in the decision as to whether this proposal is sustainable development.
Deliverability
The site is greenfield with no known constraints to deliverability and the application is made in full.
The application is, therefore, compliant with the NPPF as it is available and achievable, with a realistic prospect of it being delivered. A question has arisen over the affordable housing contribution that is required, but at the time of writing this report, the viability of the scheme has not been put in doubt by the applicant.
2. Impact on the landscape and character and appearance of the area
Page 53 The site is within the ‘Four Marks clay plateau’ landscape character type as defined in the East Hampshire Landscape Character Assessment. This characterises the area in landscape terms but also identifies the need to ensure development conserves the current density level, emphasises street patterns, and conserves soft boundaries (particularly on road fronts).
This part of the village and Wield Road is flat but occupies an elevated position with open distant views to the north. A belt of trees (outside the application area) runs to the east of the site screening it from views from Trinity Hill. Areas to the south and west of the site are more enclosed by development and tree cover.
The area is rural in character and development in the area comprises a range of architectural styles and periods, mostly larger detached properties set in spacious plots. The rural character is reinforced by a lack of street lighting and pavements. The linear stretch of development on the south side of Wield Road is typical of the approach roads to Medstead. The application replicates both the linear pattern and the density level of the area and is subsequently considered to fit well with the character of the area.
The site would be visible on approaching the village from Wield Road. Views of the buildings would be broken by a hedgerow and isolated trees and the development would also be seen in context with buildings on the southern side of Wield Road, which merges increasingly closely to the road and therefore the development would not result in significant adverse visual effects on the appearance of the area.
The Parish Council and some objectors refer to the refusal at appeal of a ‘cul-de-sac’ form of development in the village in 2008. That proposal differs notably in that it comprised backland development. Whilst the application under consideration would utilise a shared access and shared driveway, this is not considered to be demonstrably harmful to the area. It is true that most properties in the vicinity each have their own access to the highway, the need to retain the hedgerow and utilise the existing entrance is a logical and justifiable approach.
The proposal reinforces the local distinctiveness and landscape character and as such the proposal would accord with policy CP20 of the JCS and Criteria 3 and 11 of the IHPS.
3. Design
Plots 1 and Plot 4 are mirrored versions of the same house type and are two-bedroomed bungalows. Plot 2 would be a two storey house and Plot 3 would be a a one and a half storey dwelling, so the mixture of architectural styles reflects the variety in the area. Detached or link-attached garages are also consistent with the area and together with the additional landscaping proposed, the development would swiftly harmonise with the area.
The proposal is therefore considered to accord with the design policy of the JCS, CP29 and criteria 3 of the IHPS.
The housing mix proposes 2 x 2beds and 2 x 4beds which is considered a good mix, and the provision of two bungalows provides for accessible dwellings that satisfies criteria 8 of the IHPS and policy CP11 of the JCS.
Page 54 Notwithstanding details of materials specified on the plans, it is considered necessary to secure prior approval, by way of conditions, of all external facing materials including the timber boarding finishes, roof materials and surface materials of the access track and driveways. All are important to secure an appropriately rural appearance and avoid a potentially suburban and gentrified aesthetic that would be incongruous to the area.
4. Highways
The Parish Council and objectors raise a number of strong concerns regarding the highway implications of the proposal, particularly the absence of pavement/street lighting and the resulting lack of accessibility of the site to the village facilities. Associated with this is the concern that the road is narrow and has bends that make it hazardous to walk along, particularly given there is no refuge place for pedestrians and that there is a significant amount of large agricultural vehicles using the roads.
Turning firstly to parking and access to the site, the plans provide for the required 10 spaces and there is clearly ample additional room for parking/manoeuvring within the site that removes any realistic likelihood of on-street parking. The access is on the outside of a bend and the visibility splays of 2.4m by 43m can be achieved.
A judgement needs to be made on the safety and accessibility of the site having regard to criteria 7 which requires proposals to "create safe and accessible environments that offer good access via a range of transport modes. Sites where it is possible to walk easily to a range of facilities will be considered preferable to sites that are further away and which would make car journeys into town/village centres more likely." As referred to above under the heading 'sustainability of the location,' the site is considered to be close to a limited range of facilities in the village including a shop, pub and post-office. These are approximately 450m from the site and the ground between them is flat; the village school and recreational facilities are however further separated from the site to the east by an additional 900m. It is likely therefore that any trips to the school would more likely be made by car. In assessing the suitability of this, the scale of the development (which includes 2, two-bed bungalows) should be borne in mind together with regard to the nature of ribbon development in the area. If trips to the school are more likely to be made by car it would alleviate concerns regarding future occupants walking on unsuitable roads.
There is a pavement in the area by the village shop ending opposite the church. The road does narrow at this point but is wide enough for vehicles to pass though there are limited opportunities for pedestrians to escape the carriageway. The road widens towards the site with two lanes and grass verges. The alignment of the road does bend and the Highways Officer states that pedestrian facilities would be ideal. It is also stated though that there are a number of properties on Wield Road already and that the most vulnerable users, children, would likely be driven to school.
It can be surmised from this that the likely number of vehicle movements the proposal would generate, and the relative risk to occupants walking on the road to make trips to the facilities closer to the development, would not amount to a significant concern in terms of either highway safety or the sustainability of the location.
With regards to the impact on other road users, including horse riders and cyclists, (Wield Road is part of National Cycle Trail 23) that would result from the increased traffic the
Page 55 development would generate, it is considered the increase would be negligible and would not significantly adversely effect safety of all users of the highway.
5. Impact on local amenities
A number of objectors refer to the additional pressure the development would place on local amenities with particular reference to capacity at the school and surgery. The scale of the development does not trigger a contribution towards education. There are known concerns locally regarding flooding, telecoms/broadband and water/sewerage. The high elevation of Medstead also means water pressures are relatively poor. The proposal would provide a private treatment plant so there would be no additional pressure on foul drainage system and having regard to the scale of the development, it is not considered that the proposal would result in significant increased pressure on services. The proposal may help to sustain the local shop, post-office and pub with little discernible impact on the demography of the settlement.
6. Ecology
The application was supported with an ecological appraisal that included bat and reptile surveys. The County Ecologist has confirmed that the site is unlikely to support protected species. It is though possible that hazel dormice may occur in the hedgerow and that it is, therefore, appropriate that the hedgerow be retained (which reinforces the point above in respect of the character of the area). A condition in respect of ecological mitigation and enhancement measures is proposed.
7. Impact on amenity of adjoining property
The four dwellings would be set back from the road (typically by 50-60m) so the distance between proposed and existing buildings, together with the intervening planting, would ameliorate any impact on properties on Wield Road. The building to the south is separated by approximately 60m and whilst plot 4 would be close to the boundary of the garden (5m), this would be a single storey building with a ridge height of 7m (hipped away from the boundary) and so there would be no overriding loss of light or amenity.
8. Energy conservation
Policy CP24 of the JCS requires new development to promote the conservation of energy by seeking the highest practicable degree of energy efficiency. In this instance, on completion, the dwelling should meet at least level 4 code of the Sustainable home threshold and must provide at least 10% of energy demand from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy sources. No energy statement has been prepared with regard to this proposal, so no specific measures to secure the renewable targets have been proposed; therefore, a condition would need to be attached to secure such details.
9. Developer contributions
In order for the development to be acceptable in planning terms and in accordance with the requirements of policies CP13, CP14, CP18, CP31 and CP32 of the JCS and saved policy T2 of the Local Plan, a legal agreement is required to secure the following contributions:
Page 56
• Environmental improvements in accordance with Policy CP32 of the JCS • Recreational open space provision in accordance with policy CP18 of the JCS • Transportation improvements in accordance with policies CP31 of the JCS and T2 of the Local Plan • Affordable housing contribution in accordance with policies CP13 and CP14 of the JCS
These contributions would need to be secured by a legal obligation under S106 of the 1990 Planning Act. Whilst no such obligation has been made, the agent has indicated the developer is willing to enter into such an obligation. Subject to resolving a query regarding the affordable housing contribution, a draft legal agreement is ready to be completed and the recommendation is that permission be granted subject to this being completed by the 6 November 2014.
Response to Parish/Town Council Comments
The issues raised by the Parish Council have been addressed in the foregoing report. It is reiterated that whilst there will inevitably be an impact on highways and the intrinsic impact of development on an edge of settlement location, there are no significant demonstrable harm arising from the proposal that would warrant a refusal.
The Parish Council refer to a differing set of plans within the Design and Access Statement but these are simply a record of what was submitted at pre-app stage to illustrate the evolution of the scheme.
Conclusion
It is inevitable that development in the smaller rural settlements is less sustainable than housing in the larger towns. Nevertheless, the Council has a commitment to accommodate 150 dwellings in the smaller settlements to help in the delivery of the district wide housing need. Such villages are often constrained by a need to avoid inappropriate backland development or Conservation Area issues and will invariably result in the need for growth to be accommodated on the periphery of the settlement where there is unlikely to be complete network of pavements or street lighting. This scheme strikes an appropriate balance between accommodating some growth that is as sustainably located as is likely to be achieved and a scheme that is proportionate to the scale and role of the settlement. The scheme reflects the character and appearance of the area and accords with the relevant criteria of the IHPS and policies of the Joint Core Strategy and the NPPF.
RECOMMENDATION
That: a) the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to complete a legal obligation to secure the following: i) Affordable housing provision and its allocation in accordance with JCS Policy CP14 and supplementary planning guidance on the Implementation of the Policy for Affordable Housing, and
Page 57 ii) Developer contributions towards - off-site public open space, community facilities and transportation improvements, in accordance with Policies CP18, CP31 CP32 of the JCS and policy T2 of the Local Plan, then b) provided that all parties enter into the legal agreement to secure points i) and ii) above by 6 November 2014, then the Service Manager, Planning Development be authorised to grant PERMISSION , subject to the conditions set out below.
However, in the event that all parties do not enter into a Legal Agreement to secure points i) and ii) above by 6 November 2014, the application will be refused under the adopted scheme of delegation.
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this planning permission. Reason - To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
2 Prior to the commencement of any development activities, a site-wide ecological mitigation and enhancement plan shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall be in accordance with the outline mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures detailed within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Phase 1 Habitat Survey Azure Ecology, April 2014), Reptile Survey (The Ecology Co-Op, April 2014) and Bat Activity Survey (The Ecology Co-Op, June 2014). Any suc h measures shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the agreed details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: to provide ecological protection and enhancement in accordance with Conservation Regulations 2010, Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, NERC Act 2006, NPPF and Policy CP21 of the East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy.
3 A detailed landscape scheme must be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any works on site are commenced and/or no later than the substantial completion of the first building shell. This scheme shall include the following details:- a. location, condition and species of all existing trees with a stem diameter of 100mm or greater; b. position and species of hedgerows and other vegetation to be retained; c. planting plans should include schedules of trees and plants, their species, planting sizes, numbers and densities; d. areas to be turfed or grass seeded; e. implementation timetable. Reason - In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and to enable proper consideration to be given to the impact of the proposed development on existing trees.
4 Before any part of the development is occupied or used (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation works carried
Page 58 out and a completion certificate confirming that the approved remediation scheme has been implemented in full shall both have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.
5 All development shall be stopped immediately in the event that contamination not previously identified is found to be present on the development site and details of the contamination shall be reported immediately in writing to the Planning Authority.
Development shall not re-start on site until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority:- (a) a scheme outlining a site investigation and risk assessments designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site. (b) a written report of the findings which includes, a description of the extent, scale and nature of contamination, an assessment of all potential risks to known receptors, an update of the conceptual site model (devised in the desktop study), identification of all pollutant linkages and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and identified as unnecessary in the written report, an appraisal of remediation options and proposal of the preferred option(s) identified as appropriate for the type of contamination found on site and (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) (c) a detailed remediation scheme designed to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment. The scheme should include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works, site management procedures and a verification plan outlining details of the data to be collected in order to demonstrate the completion of the remediation works and any arrangements for the continued monitoring of identified pollutant linkages;
and before any part of the development is occupied or used (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation works carried out and a completion certificate confirming that the approved remediation scheme has been implemented in full shall both have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Page 59 The above site works, details and certification submitted shall be in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to co ntrolled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.
6 No development shall start on site until details of a scheme for foul and surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details should include provision for all surface water drainage from parking areas and areas of hardstanding. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for drainage. Note: The applicant is requested to contact the Council's Drainage Consultant as soon as possible regarding the above condition.
7 Before any part of the development is first occupied a verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in writing, to the Planning Authority, confirming that the built development hereby permitted meets Code Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and incorporates measures that provide at least 10% of the predicted energy requirement from on-site renewable sources, or, provided that first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority before development starts on site, an alternative means of achieving an equivalent energy saving.
The developer shall nominate a competent person for the purpose of assessing and providing the above required report and certificate to confirm that the completed works incorporate such measures as to provide the required energy savings. The energy saving works set out in the above report shall thereafter be maintained so that the required energy saving is sustained at the certified level for the lifetime of the development.
(Note:- The carbon savings which result from these measures are required to be above and beyond any savings provided by measures incorporated into the development to comply with Part L Building Regulations). Reason - To ensure that the development incorporates necessary mitigation and adaptation measures with regard to climate change.
8 No development shall start on site until the access, including the footway and/or verge crossing shall be constructed and lines of sight of 2.4 metres by 43 metres provided in accordance with the approved plans. The lines of sight splays shown on the approved plans shall be kept free
Page 60 of any obstruction exceeding 1metre in height above the adjacent carriageway and shall be subsequently maintained so thereafter. Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interests of highway safety.
9 Before development commences samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.. Reason - To ensure that the materials used in the construction of the approved development harmonise with the surroundings.
10 Before development commences on site details/samples of all surface materials to the access track and private driveways shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure that the materials used in the construction of the development harmonise with its surroundings.
11 The levels of the finished development shall accord precisely with those shown on the approved plans. Reason - To ensure that a harmonising visual relationship is achieved between the new and existing developments.
12 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars:
Application Form Letter MatPlan Ltd to EHDC 30.6.2014 Planning, Design & Access Statement Access Appraisal Drainage Strategy Phase I Desk Study Phase II Ground Investigation Report Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Phase I Habitat Assessment Bat Activity Survey Reptile Survey Report Schedule of Plans 793-D-100 Site Location Plan 793-D-101 Site Plan 793-D-102 Site Context Plan 793-D-103 Site Setting Out Plan 793-D-104 Plans & Elevations Plot 01 793-D-105 Rev A Plans & Elevations Plot 02 793-D-106 Plans & Elevations Plot 03 793-D-107 Plans & Elevations Plot 04 793-D-108 Street Scene ENC/7P0-250214 & 793-d-101 Tree Protection Plan 502-01P Revision A Engineering Details Drainage Strategy
Page 61 Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development
Informative Notes to Applicant:
1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach and works with applicants/agents on development proposals in a manner focused on solutions by:
• offering a pre-application advice service,
• updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,
• by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter.
In this instance the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit.
2 The hours of construction and demolition should be limited to 08:00 - 18:00 Mondays to Fridays, 09:00 - 13:00 Saturdays, and not at all Sundays or Bank Holidays, including site traffic and deliveries.
3 Please note that there is a Section 106 Agreement that applies to this permission.
CASE OFFICER: Jon Holmes 01730 234243
Page 62
SECTION 1 Item 2 Land north of Towngate Farm House, Wield Road, Medstead, Alton, GU34 5LY
Proposed site layout
Proposed street scene
Page 63 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 64
Page 65 Item No.: 03
The information, recommendations, and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.
PROPOSAL Change of use of land and the erection of 5 new dwellings (additional information received 29 August 2014) LOCATION: Land West of Bay Tree Cottage, Main Road, Bentley, Farnham REFERENCE : 55233 PARISH:Bentley APPLICANT: Linden Homes Ltd CONSULTATION EXPIRY : 13 August 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY : 27 August 2014 COUNCILLORS: Cllr K Carter SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
This application is included on the agenda as it is a departure from the adopted Local Plan and is being considered under the Interim Housing Policy Statement.
Site and Development
The site is adjacent to the Bentley Settlement Policy boundary (which ends just to the west of the site) and is a gap in a ribbon of development fronting onto Main Road, Bentley. To the west lie a pair of fairly modern detached dwellings and to the east lies Bay Tree Cottage, an older dwelling, set closer to the highway. Opposite lies the village recreation ground, which is on land that rises up gently from the highway, giving views across the application site.
The proposal is a full application for five dwellings, two of which would be affordable, three bedroom dwellings and three of which would be market housing, with four bedrooms each. The dwellings would be two-storey, with pitched roofs, of similar design to the newer dwellings adjacent. The existing field access would be closed off and two new vehicular accesses would be formed to the west of this.
Relevant Planning History
No relevant history.
Development Plan Policies and Proposals
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014)
CP1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development CP2 - Spatial Strategy
Page 66 CP10 - Spatial strategy for housing CP11 - Housing tenure, type and mix CP14 - Affordable housing for rural communities CP18 - Provision of open space, sport and recreation and built facilities CP19 - Development in the countryside CP20 - Landscape CP27 - Pollution CP21 - Biodiversity CP24 - Sustainable construction CP25 - Flood Risk CP26 - Water resources/ water quality CP29 - Design CP31 - Transport CP32 - Infrastructure
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (2006)
T2 - Public Transport Provision and Improvement T3 - Pedestrians and Cyclists H14 - Other Housing Outside Settlement Policy Boundaries
Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments
Archaeology Section, HCC - The site of proposed development lies in an area of some archaeological interest. While there are no known archaeological finds or features from the site itself it lies close to the projected line of the Roman road that runs between Winchester and Neatham. To the south of the proposed site a Bronze Age hoard was found that included swords, spearheads, axes and palstaves, Neolithic finds from the south west also indicate prehistoric potential. It is possible that previously unidentified archaeological deposits relating to Roman activity are present within the site. While this would not present an overriding concern I would advise that the recording of any archaeological deposits that might be present be secured through the attachment of a suitable phased condition.
In the first instance assessment could take the form or a trenched evaluation, the results of which would inform the nature and extent of any mitigation that might be required
Drainage Consultant - No objection subject to conditions.
Landscape Officer - The proposed layout is out of character with the edge of Bentley and its rural location, as it shows a continuous frontage along the road outside the settlement boundary, where there are currently intermittent houses in large plots. The retention of the front boundary hedge is a positive feature, but a single house would be more appropriate in continuing to allow views southwards from the recreation ground to open countryside.
EHDC Housing Officer - This application proposes the inclusion of 2 affordable dwellings, which meets the minimum 40% requirement under the Interim Policy Statement Housing.
Page 67 The housing need figures, for rented accommodation in Bentley are as follows (figures taken from Hampshire Homechoice Register):
1 bed: 212 2 bed: 100 3 bed: 39 4 bed: 9 Total: 360
Included within these figures are applicants who have a local connection with the parish (live, work or have family there). The JCS policy CP.13 para. 6.38 requires housing applicants expressing a need to live in Bentley to show some form a local connection. However, a cascade to the wider EHDC District is also required to ensure that private funding can be secured to procure the affordable homes. The numbers of applicants with a local connection are currently:
1 bed: 20 2 bed: 8 3 bed: 2 4 bed: 0 Total: 30
The affordable housing mix is proposed as 2 three bed houses. These units would help address the need for larger family accommodation and would be in keeping with a modest development of larger homes. Both affordable homes should be made available as affordable rent.
The location of the affordable units is acceptable. The Design and Quality of the affordable homes should be to HCA standards to ensure eligibility for grant, if available. The affordable homes and affordable land should be transferred to a Registered Provider with appropriate triggers for the delivery of the affordable homes secured in a suitable legal agreement.
The affordable housing provisions within the application are acceptable and I support this application proceeding in its current form.
Environment Agency - No comments.
HIghways Comments - The site is adjacent to Main Road, Bentley, a C class road subject to a 30mph speed limit. During a site visit, the vehicles passing the locations of the proposed accesses appeared to be travelling faster than the posted speed limit.
Drawing 13100-P101 revision C shows the proposed site layout. The carriageway area is a single colour indicating a potential shared space without separate footways. Whilst the Highway Authority does not have any objection in principle to shared spaces the drawing does not show, and the Design and Access statement does not explain how pedestrians, including people with pushchairs or wheelchair users, will access and exit the site safely. Pedestrians do not have a separate footway and therefore will stand on the access, potentially in conflict with vehicles, in order to wait to cross the road to the footway on the opposite side of Main Road.
Page 68 Wheelchair users are not able to access the footway on Main Road due to lack of dropped crossings. This layout is not supported by a Road Safety Audit which acknowledges these issues and addresses whether the auditor feels these require layout changes; and no proposal to provide continuous pedestrian desire lines to existing footways is shown. The drawing also shows the accesses as bell mouth junctions, this will require a S278 design check and associated fees; the applicant may wish to consider straight vehicle crossovers which is potentially a quicker and cheaper option.
Drawing 13100-P101 revision C shows that the car parking spaces all have the minimum 6 metre aisle width for turning and manoeuvring; and the spaces all measure as 2.4 metres by 4.8 metres which is acceptable. The garages are all larger than the minimum dimensions of 6 metres by 3 metres. Bin storage areas area shown on drawing 13100- P101 revision C; these are areas of hardstanding on private land which are close enough to the public highway to be used by the refuse collectors and therefore this provision is acceptable. Section 12 of the application form states that soakaways will be used to dispose of private surface water; the applicant should satisfy themselves that the site has appropriate infiltration rates for the size of soakaway proposed. Cut off drainage is required to prevent private surface water discharging onto the public highway; if permission is granted details of this will be required via condition.
In line with East Hampshire District Council's adopted parking standards a three-bedroom dwelling requires two car parking spaces and a four-bedroom dwelling, or larger, requires three car parking spaces. For this proposal the requirement is calculated as 13 spaces and this proposal has 14 and therefore is acceptable.
Drawing 13100-P101 revision C shows 2.4 metre by 59 metre visibility splays which correspond to an 85th percentile speed of 37mph in Manual for Streets. The speed limit around the site is 30mph; however as raised earlier in this response the speeds witnessed during the site visit were judged to be above this. In light of the speed limit and the speeds witnessed during the visit it is considered that using 37mph as the 85th percentile speed is an acceptable proposal. For the easterly access it can be shown that the visibility splays can be achieved in both directions.
The splays from the westerly entrance, however, can be achieved to the east but to the west the splays are drawn through an existing parking layby. Realigning the splay to the west, without cutting through the layby, would result in a kerb offset of under 1 metre. Whilst the Highway Authority usually require splays to be drawn to the kerb, this would not be affecting the visibility of oncoming nearside motorbikes and cyclists, as these would be approaching from the east. Furthermore this layby is likely to be used as a school drop off point and public comments on the application have indicated that parents also use the opposite side of the road to the site as a drop off point, therefore it is likely that during times when the layby is in use the speeds of vehicles will be lower.
If the objection can be overcome a transport contribution will be required in relation to the provision of five dwellings at the proposed site.
The level of transport contribution relates directly to the impact of the proposed development through the formulaic approach set out in the Transport Contribution Policy, which attributes a cost per additional multimodal trip, based upon the known cost of providing transport infrastructure to support development.
Page 69 The trip rates for residential uses have been derived from assumed household occupancy levels. In this instance, estimated multi-modal trip rates of 7.0 trips per three-bedroom dwelling and 10.2 trips per four-bedroom or larger dwelling have been calculated, at a cost per multi-modal trip rate of £535. A contribution will be sought for 2 three-bedroom dwellings and 3 four-bedroom or larger dwellings. The contribution is calculated as £23,861 for the overall proposed development.
The additional vehicle trips will cause harm by worsening local congestion and this contribution is required to provide more sustainable travel choices and to manage growing travel demands in a sustainable way. In addition, the contribution will comply with the requirements of the East Hampshire District Council’s Local Plan Review policies. The contribution will be used to fund local access schemes including improvements to pedestrian and cycle facilities, as identified within the East Hampshire District Council’s Transport Statement.
The proposed Transport Contribution is in line with the three tests as set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 122 regulation. The contribution is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms because it will help fund local measures to accommodate the additional demands generated by the development. The contribution is directly related to the site because it is calculated on the basis of the number of trips generated by the site and will provide local improvements that link the site to the wider transport network. The contribution is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development site, as it is based on the number of multi-modal trips anticipated to be generated by the site, based on the size of the dwellings to be provided, and therefore the impact of the site on the local transport network.
Refusal is recommended on the basis of the information originally submitted.
Amended Highway comments received 19 September 2014
This is a reconsultation due to additional information being received from the applicant; these comments are in addition to the previous response. The previous response raised the issue that no road safety audit was submitted; it was agreed that due to the size of the proposal it would be acceptable for the transport consultant to carry out a 'self audit' instead of a full independent road safety audit. This has been submitted in the form of a letter from Motion transport consultants dated 29th August. The Highway Authority is satisfied that the consultant has considered the safety and suitability of the site layout and access and therefore removes the earlier objection.
Drawing 13100 - P101 revision D now reflects that the two accesses have been amended from bell mouths to straight vehicle crossovers. Whilst the Highway Authority do not object to bell mouths in this instance, straight crossovers are very likely to save the applicant both time and money.
Permission for crossovers will be required from Hampshire County Council; details can be found at the website below:Drawing 13100 - P101 revision D also shows the addition of corresponding dropped kerbs opposite the site to allow wheelchairs and pushchairs to access the closest section of footway; this should be included in the application for the above crossovers.
Page 70 No objection subject to conditions.
County Ecologist - It is requested that clarification is sought on the mitigation measures proposed for avoiding impacts to great crested newts (GCN).
The application is accompanied by an Ecological Appraisal (ECS, June 2014) which provides a sound assessment of the site’s current ecological value. Essentially, the site comprises a short-grazed field of species-poor grassland with associated boundary hedging and planted trees. Overall, the site is considered to be of limited ecological value and I would concur with that assessment.
The report correctly identifies that the application site is within close proximity to Bentley Pond Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), site designated for the presence of a sizeable breeding population of the European protected GCN. Given the proximity of the application site to this breeding nucleus, I agree that there is potential for terrestrial GCN to be present within the application site and thus impacted by the proposals. The risk will occur through the killing/injury of individual animals and/or the loss of terrestrial habitat and/or the severance of movement corridors. It is therefore incumbent upon the applicant to ensure that sufficient information is presented to enable the LPA to have regard to the provisions of the Conservation Regulations 2010, and specifically the LPA must have regard to the three ‘derogation tests’ (see below).
This development will affect GCN, which receive strict legal protection under UK law by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and under EU law by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (commonly referred to as the Habitats Regulations). Where developments affect EPS, permission can be granted unless the development is likely to result in a breach of the EU Directive underpinning the Habitats Regulations and is unlikely to be granted an EPS licence from Natural England to allow the development to proceed under derogation from the law.
Will the development result in a breach of the EU Directive?
Yes, unmitigated, the development has potential to result in harm to individual GCN and result in impacts to the favourable conservation status of GCN locally.
Is the development unlikely to be licensed?
An EPS licence can only be granted if the development proposal is able to meet three tests:
1. the consented operation must be for ‘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’; (Regulation 53(2)(e)) 2. there must be ‘no satisfactory alternative’ (Regulation 53(9)(a)); and
3. 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’ (Regulation 53(9)(b)).
Page 71 It is for you as the case officer to assess the proposals against the first two tests – you may wish to ask for further information from the applicant. In order to assess the development against the third test, sufficient details must be available to show how killing/injury/disturbance of GCN will be avoided and how any loss or damage to habitat will be compensated.
It is my opinion further detail is required in respect to site-specific mitigation/compensation measures. For example, an outline mitigation strategy would include details of the location of GCN fencing, the timing of mitigation measures and the location, extent and management of compensatory habitat.
Further information has been received regarding the impact on Greater Crested Newts and the further comments of the County Ecologist are below.
Further comments received 30 September 2014
In summary, the mitigation measures proposed for avoiding impacts to great crested newts (GCN) are suitable and no further work is needed.
The application is accompanied by an Ecological Appraisal (ECS, June 2014) as well as a Mitigation Strategy for the Protection of Great Crested Newts (ECS, August 2014) which together provide a sound assessment of the site’s current ecological value and in particular the likelihood of great crested newts (GCN) occurring. Essentially, the site comprises a short-grazed field of species-poor grassland with associated boundary hedging and planted trees. Overall, the site is considered to be of limited ecological value and I would concur with that assessment.
Due to the proximity of Bentley Pond Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), a site designated for the presence of a sizeable breeding population of the European protected GCN, it has been necessary to devise a suitable mitigation strategy to ensure that impacts are avoided/minimised/compensated. The proposed strategy entails the use of exclusion fencing at the construction area boundaries in order to prevent GCN from entering the area. This may be coupled with the use of pitfall trapping in order to capture and remove any animals from within the fenced area. Both these techniques are standard and accord with industry good practice. Post-development, grassland and hedgerow habitat will be provided to improve GCN terrestrial habitat in the longer term.
This development will affect GCN, which receive strict legal protection under UK law by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and under EU law by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (commonly referred to as the Habitats Regulations). Where developments affect EPS, permission can be granted unless the development is likely to result in a breach of the EU Directive underpinning the Habitats Regulations and is unlikely to be granted an EPS licence from Natural England to allow the development to proceed under a derogation from the law. Will the development result in a breach of the EU Directive?
Yes, unmitigated, the development has potential to result in harm to individual GCN and result in impacts to the favourable conservation status of GCN locally.
Page 72 Is the development unlikely to be licensed?
An EPS licence can only be granted if the development proposal is able to meet three tests:
1. the consented operation must be for ‘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’; (Regulation 53(2)(e))
2. there must be ‘no satisfactory alternative’ (Regulation 53(9)(a)); and
3. 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’ (Regulation 53(9)(b)).
It is for you as the case officer to assess the proposals against the first two tests – you may wish to ask for further information from the applicant. In order to assess the development against the third test, sufficient details must be available to show how killing/injury/disturbance of GCN will be avoided and how any loss or damage to habitat will be compensated.
It is my opinion that, given the low risk of GCN being found within the application site, the submitted details of mitigation measures are acceptable and should if implemented fully ensure that the GCN population locally is maintained at a favourable conservation status.
Therefore, if you are minded to grant permission, could I suggest that the proposed mitigation measures are secured via a suitably worded condition.
Environmental Services - Each property will need to purchase 1 x 240l green refuse and 1 x 240l black recycling bin and a glass box, to be left for collection at the kerbside.
Schools Organisation Officer - I have no adverse comments to make and, in this case, will not be seeking a contribution towards educational facilities as this development falls below the threshold for which such a contribution will be sought.
South Downs National Park Link Officer - The application site is in a rural location and close to the National Park boundary, although it is separated from the Park by the A31 classified road. At present the openness of the site allows views from the village to Alice Holt Forest within the National Park. Development of the site would interfere with these views and to a limited extent would affect the setting of the National Park.
Thames Water - No objection
Bentley Parish Council – OBJECTS to this application for the following reasons: 1. The site has significant landscape value and allows far reaching views from the village to Alice Holt Forest and the South Downs National Park beyond. These would be totally obscured by the proposed houses. 2. The site is directly opposite the Recreation Ground (the principle public open space in Bentley), and serves to connect it to the countryside around.
Page 73 This greatly enhances the rural setting of the Recreation Ground and the charm of the village. This character is valuable and well worth protecting, and would be lost if the application was granted. 3. The proposed development represents ribbon development along the south side of the Old Main Road, which neither preserves nor enhances the character or appearance of this part of the village, and therefore should be resisted. 4. The height of the roof line dwarfs the older houses to the east and would lead to deterioration in the street scene in this part of the village. The substantial size of the houses in relatively small plots is very likely to lead to additional on street parking on a road already congested with parking at school pick up and drop off times. 5. The design of the dwellings is not in keeping with the local vernacular.
Representations
Thirty five representations have been received, thirty four raise objections and one makes comments.
Issues raised are: a) Would add to congestion in the area; b) village infrastructure cannot cope (e.g. drains and sewers, car park at railway station full by 7:20am each day, school full, electricity supply can be unreliable); c) impact on the open outlook/views from the Village recreation ground towards Alice Holt Forest; d) additional traffic in an area which is already heavily used by cars and pedestrians, including for school drop-offs an pick ups; e) writer lives only 2 houses away in a listed building - concern about the impact on that; f) adverse impact on the character of the village and of the adjacent cottage; g) when the by-pass was built there was understood to be a document saying that the village would not built anything between the bypass and Bentley Main Road; h) pressure on village amenities such as doctors and schools; i) inappropriate housing design and height - does not reflect historic development in the village; j) site has historically been used for agriculture and by locals walking dogs etc. k) need for executive housing in the village is not demonstrated and affordable housing would be poorly located; l) concern about surface water flooding and need for a flood risk assessment to ensure there would not be an adverse impact off-site; m) development in the existing 'gap' between developments along this frontage would damage the scenic entrance to Bentley; n) concern about the impact on greater crested newts and other wildlife; o) village area needs to be contained; p) wrong to 'set-aside' policy CP19 of the Joint Core Strategy; q) other sites are available for housing that would have less of an impact on the character of the area; r) the national housing shortage is not for the type of housing proposed here; s) adverse impact on occupants of neighbouring dwellings (loss of light, noise and pollution would increase); t) character of the field has been allowed to deteriorate; u) parking layout would not be useable;
Page 74 v) concern that access is being left to the south to accommodate more development; w) concern about who would take up residency in the affordable houses.
Determining Issues
1. Development plan and material considerations 2. Principle of development 3. Deliverability 4. Affordable housing 5. Access & highway issues 6. Impact on neighbouring properties 7. Impact on surrounding area 8. Trees and ecology 9. Drainage 10. Energy conservation 11. Archaeology 12. Developers' contributions
Planning Considerations
1. Development plan and material considerations
As required by Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, applications must be determined in line with the adopted plan for the area, unless material considerations apply. The development plan for EHDC comprises the 'saved' policies of the 2006 Local Plan: Second Review and the policies set out in the newly adopted Joint Core Strategy.
A significant material consideration is the NPPF, particularly Paragraph 49 which confirms that, whilst the local planning authority does not have a five year housing supply, relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date. East Hampshire District Council does not have a five year supply of housing.
The effect of Paragraph 49 of the NPPF is that saved Local Plan policies and JCS policies which restrict market housing development within the countryside beyond designated settlement policy boundaries (SPBs) are, therefore, not considered up-to-date. Whilst many objectors to the application point to restrictions on development outside settlement policy boundaries as sufficient grounds for resisting the application and oppose encroachment into Greenfield sites, it is not.
There are two reasons for this: firstly the impact of Paragraph 49, and secondly, the Council recognises that the district’s housing requirements, as now identified in the Joint Core Strategy, is significantly larger than had previously been the case that development outside the SPBs identified in the Local Plan: Second Review, on greenfield sites will be essential to meet the new target. The identification of the essential greenfield sites would be undertaken in the Local Plan Part 2 Allocations. However, the lack of a 5 year housing land supply brings added urgency to the need to release greenfield sites and effectively, takes decisions of principle away from the plan led system and purely into the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as the NPPF sets out at Paragraph 14.
Page 75 The Interim Housing Policy Statement
In recognising the reliance on the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development, the Council has adopted interim supplementary guidance (Interim Housing Policy Statement) referred to as the IHPS.
The IHPS establishes a list of criteria and considerations to be applied in determining applications for sites outside settlement policy boundaries relative to sustainability considerations in East Hampshire. A primary sustainable development principle in East Hampshire is the settlement hierarchy. This categorises settlements as market towns; large local service centres; small local service centres and other settlements with a settlement policy boundary. These categories relate to the level of facilities and services that are readily accessible. The IHPS takes forward the sustainability principles of the settlement hierarchy and is only supportive of sites which are immediately adjacent or contiguous to existing local plan settlement policy boundaries. This would ensure that planning is based on sound sustainability principles, whilst containing sprawl and maintaining compact urban envelopes.
The IHPS is not intended to replace or frustrate any part of the plan making process, but to guide development in its absence and to speed up the delivery of housing within the district. IHPS criteria closely reflect the sustainable development aims and objectives in the NPPF and in the adopted JCS with some additional local criteria which reflect the interim status/purpose of the policy. The IHPS includes a distinction between the housing allocation numbers within the key settlements in the JCS; the IHPS does not include the word minimum. This is because the IHPS is a short term interim position. The Council considers it would be most sustainable to manage the amount of development in each of the target settlements over the 1-2 year period, whilst the Council does not have a five year housing supply and a Part 2 Local Plan: allocation. To permit all the JCS housing target for the period up to 2028, in a short period is not a sustainable approach to development.
Applications will need to comply with any remaining saves policies in the Local Plan: Second Review, where applicable. The intention of the IHPS is to manage development outside settlement policy boundaries so that it is allowed in locations at an appropriate scale or density, relative to the size, role and character of the settlement in question (Criterion 2) that would result in sustainable development. Criteria 3 and 4 seek to conserve townscape and landscape character and secure adequate assessment for sites near to European protected species designation (5.6) and support developments with safe and accessible environments (7). The policy seeks to secure a housing mix targeted to the local housing needs and that includes upwards of 40% affordable housing (8 & 9). Concurrently development is expected to make comprehensive and effective use of available land, with appropriate density, helping to control the amount of greenfield land likely to be developed and contain the geographic size of settlements (10 & 11). Criteria 12 & 13 are concerned with the deliverability of sites and developments coming forward under this policy. These require that development, individually or cumulatively should not be constrained by the need for significant unplanned/funded off-site infrastructure; that there is no evidence of deliverability and viability having regard to necessary contributions towards infrastructure and affordable housing, and that the intention to develop is demonstrated by the applicant.
Page 76 Criterion 13 sets out that any planning permission granted under the IHPS would need to commence within 2 years and this will be subject to a planning condition to maximise the likelihood of delivery of housing within the district in the short term. Here, it is important to reflect on the IHPS' purpose which is clarified in the supporting text at paragraph 5.2:
'The Council wants new homes delivered in the right places to meet the needs of the District....the emphasis will be on sites being put forward under this Interim Policy Statement approach being deliverable at the time that they are put forward. Therefore detailed applications would be preferred and be accompanied by evidence of deliverability. They should not, for example be dependent on the delivery of significant off-site infrastructure; and should be fully within the applicants control. Those proposing development of a site are therefore encouraged to demonstrate a strong desire and willingness to develop it in the short term, with the necessary evidence to back up such statements'.
Local Interim Planning Statement
The Council is undertaking public consultation events in the main settlements to seek views on sustainability issues affecting that settlement and which housing development sites might best meet local housing needs and place shaping aspirations. Bentley was included in the Alton public consultation on July 2nd in the Alton Assembly Rooms. The site that is now proposed for development forms part of a site put forward in the SHLAA. However, no-one voted for this site. The most popular site in Bentley was land west of Rectory Lane with 14 votes out of 22.
Housing supply considerations
In spite of recent consents, there remains a shortfall in housing supply for the district. The requirement for maintaining a 5-year supply (plus buffer) is a rolling target which is imposed on councils through central government policy. The spatial strategy set out by the JCS and reflected in the IHPS is to distribute new housing throughout the key settlements within the district outside of the SDNP. The amount of housing is based on the identified settlement hierarchy as follows:
Alton – 700 new homes Horndean - 700 new homes Clanfield – 200 new homes Liphook – 175 new homes Four Marks/South Medstead - 175 new homes Rowlands Castle - 150 new homes Other villages outside the South Downs National Park – 150 new homes
This strategy focuses the majority of new housing to Alton, Horndean and Clanfield. Bentley, which falls under the 'Other villages outside the South Downs National Park', is identified in the JCS as a Level 4 settlement intended to accommodate a proportionate amount of housing. The JCS observes of this scale of settlement that they:
‘have a limited range of local services and may be appropriate for some further small scale local development’
Page 77 Thus far, planning permissions have been granted for a potential total of 22 dwellings under the IHPS in other villages outside the SDNP. If granted planning permission, this proposal of 5 dwellings would result in a total of 27 dwellings approved and, therefore, would not satisfy the total housing requirement of 150 (combined) for other villages that have a settlement policy boundary. In addition to this application, there are other applications submitted for Medstead, Bentley and Holt Pound which are awaiting determination.
Setting aside the other matters covered by this report, the site does not seem to have any overriding environmental constraints. If permission were to be granted, it would bring development forward faster than awaiting the allocation of sites through the next stage of the local plan. Some weight, therefore, arises in favour of the scheme in relation to the timing of the delivery of new housing locally. Subject to off-site works and infrastructure, which this report considers, there are no other reasons to suspect the scheme could not be implemented within a 2 year timeframe. This would contribute towards goals in the IHPS and NPPF, raising the weight which can be attributed to this positive principle benefit of the scheme.
There are notable benefits of securing further affordable housing provision to meet identified local needs. In this respect the Housing Officer is supportive, in principle and points to present levels of need. However, as the scheme would do no more than comply with the policies in the JCS on the provision of affordable housing, the respective contribution does not add significant weight to arguments relating to housing need generally. The scheme provides for 40% affordable units, which the IHPS seeks as a minimum level.
Overall, the scheme would make a worthwhile contribution to housing supply requirements and towards addressing the shortfall within the district. Addressing this shortfall and the contribution this site would make towards doing so, should be afforded significant weight in this decision.
Local housing needs
The EHDC Housing Officer supports this application as helping to meet a recognised need for some larger (3 bedroom) dwellings in Bentley.
2. Principle of development
As mentioned earlier, the development must have regard to the NPPF. In the absence of a five year housing land supply, neither the recently adopted Joint Core Strategy nor the saved policies of the local plan can be relied upon in determining the principle of development for applications for housing. Instead, as with similar recent applications, it should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as the NPPF sets out at paragraph 14 which confirms that where decisions are to be taken and the relevant policies of the development plan are out-of-date permission should be granted unless:
- Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or
Page 78 - Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
As there are no specific policies in the NPPF to indicate that such development should necessarily be restricted, the first point is perhaps the most pertinent. The recognised benefits of the proposal include the provision of housing, both market and affordable, for which there is an identified need. These are clear economic and social benefits. For permission to be refused, the adverse impacts of the development need to significantly and demonstrably outweigh these benefits. Quite apart from the consideration of any adverse impact being caused to local character, ecology, flood risk and transport, which will be considered later in the report, there are three preliminary issues to assess in determining the principle of development. i) the adopted housing figure for Bentley; ii) is the proposal sustainable development e.g. locational suitability, impact on economic, environmental and social factors; and iii) consideration of alternative sites i) The adopted housing figure for Bentley
It should not be ignored that in meeting the district wide housing need up to 2028, the identified housing distribution for other villages outside the South Downs National Park is 150 new homes. This figure is set out in the spatial strategy of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) and reflected in the IHPS. This amount of housing is based on, and proportionate to, the identified settlement hierarchy set out in the JCS. Bentley is identified as constituting a Level 4 settlement - a rural village with a settlement policy boundary. Level 4 villages provide a limited range of local services and may be appropriate for limited local development. These villages have been defined previously through Local Plans as 'built- up' areas primarily because of the nature and extent of built development, which suggests potential for some further small scale development within them, provided it is consistent with maintaining and enhancing their character.
The adoption of the JCS in May this year followed a Local Plan Inspector's thorough testing of the housing figures for soundness. Consequently, the distribution of housing numbers for each settlement carries significant weight in the determination of a planning application for residential development under the IHPS.
Whilst the JCS establishes the settlement distributions as minimums, the IHPS establishes them as maximums for the very reason that the IHPS purpose is to provide a five year land supply within a short period of time (approximately two years).
In the case of Bentley, no other permissions have been granted, although there is a current application, yet to be determined for 37 dwellings in Hole Lane. The total number of dwellings granted permission in the other villages outside the National Park is 22 out of the 150.
Page 79 ii) Locational suitability
The site is located adjoining a settlement policy boundary, which is in accordance with the requirements of the IHPS. It continues an established form of development of ribbon development along this part of Main Road in Bentley. It is well located for village facilities (recreation ground, shops, school, employment). Bentley offers a number of local facilities compared to many of the other rural Level 4 villages. iii) Consideration of alternative sites
Objectors believe that alternative sites should be pursued rather than this one. The IHPS echoes the strategy to be pursued by the Joint Core Strategy which will, in any event, seek to allocate (predominantly greenfield) land to secure housing targets. However, each case must be assessed on its merits and, for the purposes of the NPPF and development plan, there is no sequential assessment requirement for housing sites when determining planning applications.
Notwithstanding other sites in the area may be preferential in one or other respects, it falls to the Council to determine this application on its individual merits, having regard to all material considerations.
In line with the NPPF, if a scheme is considered to represent sustainable development, it should be approved. There is no requirement for an applicant to demonstrate theirs is the most sustainable location for development.
3. Deliverability
While the NPPF requires LPAs to maintain a five year supply of housing sites (plus an additional buffer) it clarifies that:
“To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans.” Nonetheless, paragraph 5.2 of the IHPS states that “The Council wants new homes delivered in the right places to meet the needs of the District, the emphasis will be on sites being put forward under this Interim Policy Statement approach being deliverable at the time that they are put forward. Therefore detailed applications would be preferred and be accompanied by evidence of deliverability.
They should not, for example, be dependent upon delivery of significant off-site infrastructure; and should be fully in the applicants control. Those proposing development of a site are therefore encouraged to demonstrate a strong desire and willingness to develop it in the short term, with the necessary evidence to back up such statements.”
The applicant has shown that the site is deliverable and that these are no likely constraints to it being developed with the two year timescale.
Page 80 4. Affordable housing
The housing need figures, for rented accommodation in Bentley are as follows (figures taken from Hampshire Homechoice Register):
1 bed: 212 2 bed: 100 3 bed: 39 4 bed : 9 Total: 360
Included within these figures are applicants who have a local connection with the parish (live, work or have family there). The JCS policy CP13 para. 6.38 requires housing applicants expressing a need to live in Bentley to show some form a local connection. However, a cascade to the wider EHDC District is also required to ensure that private funding can be secured to procure the affordable homes. The numbers of applicants with a local connection are currently:
1 bed: 20 2 bed: 8 3 bed: 2 4 bed: 0 Total: 30
The affordable housing would amount to 40% of the total number of dwellings proposed and would be made up of: two, three bedroomed houses. These units would help address the need for larger family accommodation and would be in keeping with a modest development of larger homes.
Whilst it is stated that these dwellings would be retained as affordable in perpetuity, the tenure is not stated in the application. The EHDC Housing Officer is supportive of the application but states that both affordable homes should be made available as affordable rented.
The affordable homes and affordable land should be transferred to a Registered Provider with appropriate triggers for the delivery of the affordable homes secured in a suitable legal agreement. This would secure the number of units, the size of units, tenure types and the allocation of occupation. The Council has a cascade approach to housing allocations, looking first at the local parish, then neighbouring parishes, then wider parishes and finally the district as a whole.
5. Access & highway issues
The access to the site would be closed and reinstated with planting and two new vehicular accesses would be provided. A number of the representations of objection refer to highways safety issues and traffic. Some refer to school drop-offs and pick-ups being carried out from this stretch of road.
Page 81 The site is within a 30mph speed limit area, although the Highways Officer noted passing traffic apparently exceeding this, which would necessitate increased visibility splays over the standard for a 30mph area. The required visibility splays would encroach into a nearby layby to the west. However, when the laybys are in use for school drop-offs and pick-ups (thereby restricting visibility), speeds would be reduced along the stretch of road at that time of day, so there is no objection to this.
The Highway Authority originally raised objections to the proposal on highways safety grounds relating to the layout of the entrances and use of shared pedestrian and vehicle space, but following the receipt of further information and an amended plan, the objections have been withdrawn, subject to the imposition of planning conditions and payment of developers' contributions.
Parking would be provided to adopted standards.
6. Impact on neighbouring properties
The site is a field with open views to the south and the village recreation ground lies to the north across the road. Two neighbouring dwellings would be effected by the proposal to some extent. 2 Barley Fields is one of a pair of relatively modern dwellings to the west of the site and Bay Tree Cottage, an older dwelling, lies to the east. The proposed dwellings would have a side to side relationship with the 2 Barley Fields. Bay Tree Cottage is set forward on its site so the eastern most dwelling would be set adjacent to its garage rather than to the dwelling itself. Bay Tree Cottage has an entrance door in the elevation facing the site, and windows at both ground and first floor levels.
House 5 would be 12.5m away from the side wall with 2 Barley Fields with an access to the rear field to adjacent to the boundary. House 5 would have a first floor bathroom side window, which is recommended to be conditioned to be obscure glazed and non-opening below 1.7m.
House 1 would be 15m from the closest part of Bay Tree Cottage but to its rear. Whilst Bay Tree Cottage has both ground and first floor windows, the set back of dwelling 5 on its plot would mean that it would not block light or outlook from these windows. There would be some reduction in privacy to the west elevation of Bay Tree Cottage.
Vehicles or pedestrians accessing dwelling 5 would be at least 10m away from the west elevation of Bay Tree Cottage when accessing the front of the property. There would not be any material overlooking between windows and garden areas.
The impact on neighbours' amenities is not considered to be such that neighbours' amenities would be unacceptably effected.
7. Impact on surrounding area
The proposal would largely infill a gap in the residential frontage on the south of Main Road in Bentley. The dwellings would have the immediate appearance of 4 dwellings, because the affordable housing would be a pair of semi-detached dwellings, which would appear similar in design to the three market houses. The dwellings would be of a traditional pitched roof style, of brick, tiles and tile hanging.
Page 82 The market dwellings would be about 8.1m high and the affordable about 7.6m high.
The area is characterised by low-density residential ribbon development and the proposal would be in keeping with this character.
The main issue of concern, with respect to the impact of the proposed housing on the character of the area, relates to views across the site towards Alice Holt Forest, which lies within the South Downs National Park, and views back towards the site from the south. The concern is particularly about the public views from the Bentley Recreation Ground to the south towards Alice Holt Forest.
The comments of the Landscape Officer and the South Downs National Park Link Officer are set out above - the Landscape Officer expresses concern about the extent of infilling that would occur on the edge of the settlement and the loss of the views from the recreation ground. These views are a feature referred to in the District Countryside Design Summary. The Landscape Officer suggests that one house on the site would be more appropriate in terms of the character of the edge of settlement area and retention of views. However, it is the nature of the Interim Housing Policy that a number of houses would be provided in an edge of settlement location. The provision of one house would not lead to the benefit of the provision of affordable housing or make a significant contribution to the overall housing needs of the District. The impact on the National Park, given the distances involved, would be very limited and would not harm the purposes of the National Park.
The dwellings would be just over 8 m in height and the land slopes away to the south, so particularly from higher up on the recreation ground, views of the Alice Holt Forest would remain above and between the dwellings. Whilst the impact on wider views is noted, it is considered that this does not override the positive aspects of the proposal in housing provision.
8. Trees and ecology
The site is an open field and no significant trees would be affected. The County Ecologist has requested clarification with regard to mitigation in relation to Greater Crested Newts. This has now been received and no objection has been raised, subject to a condition. Works that affect protected species have to be licenced (European Protected Species licence), which is separate from the planning process.
9. Drainage
The site is located in flood zone 1 (low probability of flooding) and the Drainage Consultant is not aware of any historic flooding or drainage issues affecting the site. There is no objection, subject to satisfactory drainage systems for both foul and surface water. Conditions are recommended to cover this matter.
10. Energy conservation
Policy CP24 of the JCS requires new development to promote the conservation of energy by seeking the highest practicable degree of energy efficiency. In this instance, on completion, the dwellings must reach Code for Sustainable Homes, level 4. It is recommended that this is secured by condition.
Page 83 11. Archaeology
The County Archaeologist states that whilst there are no known archaeological finds or features from the site itself it lies close to the projected line of the Roman road that runs between Winchester and London. To the south, a Bronze Age hoard was found that included swords, spearheads, axes and palstaves, and Neolithic finds from the south-west also indicate prehistoric potential. It is possible that previously unidentified archaeological deposits relating to Roman activity are present within the site.
It is recommended that the recording of any archaeological deposits that might be present be secured through the attachment of a suitable condition.
12. Developers' contributions
The three tests as set out in Regulation 122(2) require s106 agreements to be:
(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
As the application proposes the provision of 5 additional residential units, in order for the development to be acceptable in planning terms, a S106 agreement is required to secure the following contributions:
• Environmental improvements in accordance with Policy CP32 of the JCS • Recreational open space provision in accordance with policy CP18 of the JCS • Transportation improvements in accordance with policies CP31 of the JCS and T2 of the Local Plan
These contributions would need to be secured by a legal obligation under S106 of the 1990 Planning Act. Whilst no such obligation has been made, the agent has indicated the developer is willing to enter into such an obligation. Subject to receipt of a satisfactory obligation, the requirements of policies CP18, CP31, CP32 of the JCS and policy T2 of the Local Plan would be met.
Response to Parish/Town Council Comments
Bentley Parish Council has objected to the proposal. They have particular concerns about the loss of views towards the Alice Holt Forest, the impact on the character of the area in terms of intensification of ribbon development along the highway, the height of the dwellings, traffic and parking congestion and the design of the dwellings. These are all relevant and important issues in the consideration of the application and these matters have been addressed in the report above. There would undeniably be some loss of openness and views and this has to be weighed up against the suitability of the site for infill housing in other ways, such as sustainability. The infilling along the frontage is not considered to be out character or detrimental to the street scene.
Page 84 Conclusion
The principle of new housing development in this location is difficult to resist, having regard to the presumption in favour of development set out in the NPPF and the council's current lack of a 5 year housing land supply. The JCS recognises that some further greenfield development is necessary in villages such as Bentley. The site does not have any overriding environmental constraints that would prevent development and the proposal would bring social benefits through the provision of housing (market and affordable) and contributions towards recreational open space, transportation improvements and environmental enhancements. Some concerns have been expressed on a range of subjects, including the impact on the landscape and on views, the impact on residential amenity and the impact on the local highway. These are legitimate concerns which have been given careful scrutiny. However, on balance, whilst some harm would arise from these considerations, officers have concluded that they would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of housing provision. Consequently, in accordance with the NPPF, sufficient grounds do not exist to withhold planning permission for this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
That: a) the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to draw up a legal obligation to secure the following: i) Affordable housing provision and its allocation in accordance with JCS Policy CP14 and supplementary planning guidance on the Implementation of the Policy for Affordable Housing. ii) Developer contributions towards - off-site recreational open space, environmental improvements and transportation improvements, in accordance with Policies CP18, CP31 CP32 of the JCS and Policy T2 of the Local Plan, then b) provided that all parties enter into the legal agreement to secure points i) and ii) above by 30 November 2014, the Service Manager Planning Development be authorised to grant PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out below.
However, in the event that all parties do not enter into a legal agreement to secure points i) and ii) above by 30 November, then the application will be refused under the adopted scheme of delegation.
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of this planning permission. Reason - To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
2 Notwithstanding any indication of materials that may have been given in the application or in the absence of such information, no development shall start on site until samples / details including manufacturers details of all the materials to be used for external facing and roofing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Page 85 The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure that the materials used in the construction of the approved development harmonise with the surroundings.
3 No development shall start on site until plans of the site showing details of the existing and proposed ground levels, proposed finished floor levels, levels of any paths, drives, garages and parking areas and the proposed completed height of the development and any retaining walls have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The details shall clearly identify the relationship of the proposed ground levels and proposed completed height with adjacent buildings. The development thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure that a satisfactory relationship results between the new development and adjacent buildings and public areas.
4 No development shall start on site until a detailed boundary treatment plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The plan shall include details of the positions, design, materials/species of the boundary treatments to be erected/planted, including full details of the replacement hedge on the site frontage. The approved details shall be fully implemented before the use of the development is commenced and/or any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity in the area and to safeguard the privacy and amenities of the residents of the locality.
5 No work shall start on site until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation and recording which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Plannin g Authority. In the first instance assessment could take the form or a trenched evaluation, the results of which would inform the nature and extent of any mitigation that might be required. Reason - To ensure that the archaeological interest of the historic building/site is properly safeguarded and recorded.
6 No development shall start on site until details of a scheme for foul and surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details should include provision for all surface water drainage from parking areas and areas of hardstanding and should be supported by site percolation tests and drainage calculations. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for drainage. Note: The applicant is requested to contact the Council's Drainage Consultant as soon as possible regarding the above condition.
Page 86 7 No development shall start on site until details of a scheme to prevent surface water from the site discharging on to the adjacent highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for surface water drainage and avoid discharge of water onto the public highway.
8 The proposed hard surface/s shall either be made of porous materials or provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the hard surface/s to a permeable or porous surface within the site. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for surface water drainage and avoid discharge of water onto the public highway.
9 No development shall start on site until the access, including the footway and/or verge crossing shall be constructed and lines of sight of 2.4 metres by 59 metres provided in accordance with the approved p lans. The lines of sight splays shown on the approved plans shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 1metre in height above the adjacent carriageway and shall be subsequently maintained so thereafter. Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interests of highway safety.
10 Before use of the development is commenced provision for the turning, loading, unloading and the parking of vehicles shall have been made within the site in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.
11 Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no development falling within Class/es A to E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 shall be carried out without the prior consent of the Planning Authority, through submission of a formal planning application Reason - In order that the Planning Authority can properly consider the effect of any future proposals on the character and amenity of the locality.
12 Notwithstanding any indication shown on the approved plans, the first floor window in the west elevation of the development hereby permitted on plot 5 shall at all times be; (i) glazed with obscure glass, and (ii) non-opening below 1.7 metres from the finished floor level of the room in which the window is installed. Reason - To protect the privacy of the occupants of the adjoining residential property/ies.
Page 87 13 Before any part of the development is first occupied a verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in writing, to the Planning Authority, confirming that the built development hereby permitted meets Code Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and incorporates measures that provide at least 10% of the predicted energy requirement from on-site renewable sources, or, provided that first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority before development starts on site, an alternative means of achieving an equivalent energy saving. The developer shall nominate a competent person for the purpose of assessing and providing the above required report and certificate to confirm that the completed works incorporate such measures as to provide the required energy savings. The energy saving works set out in the above report shall thereafter be maintained so that the required energy saving is sustained at the certified level for the lifetime of the development.
(Note:- The carbon savings which result from these measures are required to be above and beyond any savings provided by measures incorporated into the development to comply with Part L Building Regulations). Reason - To ensure that the development incorporates necessary mitigation and adaptation measures with regard to climate change.
14 All development shall be stopped immediately in the event that contamination not previously identified is found to be present on the development site and details of the contamination shall be reported immediately in writing to the Planning Authority.
Development shall not re-start on site until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority:- (a) a scheme outlining a site investigation and risk assessments designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site. (b) a written report of the findings which includes, a description of the extent, scale and nature of contamination, an assessment of all potential risks to known receptors, an update of the conceptual site model (devised in the desktop study), identification of all pollutant linkages and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and identified as unnecessary in the written report, an appraisal of remediation options and proposal of the preferred option(s) identified as appropriate for the type of contamination found on site and (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) (c) a detailed remediation scheme designed to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment.
Page 88 The scheme should include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works, site management procedures and a verification plan outlining details of the data to be collected in order to demonstrate the completion of the remediation works and any arrangements for the continued monitoring of identified pollutant linkages;
and before any part of the development is occupied or used (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation works carried out and a completion certificate confirming that the approved remediation scheme has been implemented in full shall both have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
The above site works, details and certification submitted shall be in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.
15 Development shall proceed in accordance with the ecological mitigation measures detailed within the Ecological Appraisal (ECS, June 2014) and Mitigation Strategy for the Protection of Great Crested Newts (ECS, August 2014) unless otherwise agreed in writin g by the Local Planning Authority. All mitigation measures shall thereafter be permanently retained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - to provide ecological protection and enhancement in accordance with the Conse rvation Regulations 2010, Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, NERC Act 2006, NPPF and Policy C21 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy.
16 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars:
Application Form Planning, Design & Access Statement Ecological Appraisal of East Field, Bentley, Hampshire Letter Motion to EHDC 2 June 2014 Letter Motion to EHDC dated 29 August 2014 Renewable Energy Technology Feasibility Study 13100-E01 Site Location Plan 13100-E101 Existing Site Plan 13100-E115 Existing Street Scene 13100-P101 Revision D Proposed Site Plan
Page 89 13100-P102 Proposed Site Plan - Dimensions 13100-P105 Revision C Proposed Floor Plans - House 1 13100-P106 Revision B Proposed Floor Plans - House 2 13100-P107 Revision B Proposed Floor Plans - House 3 13100-P108 Revision B Proposed Floor Plans - House 4 & 5 (Affordable Housing) 13100-P110 Revision C Proposed Elevations - House 1 13100-P111 Revision A Proposed Elevations - House 2 13100-P112 Revision A Proposed Elevations - House 3 13100-P114 Revision B Proposed Elevations - House 4 & 5 (Affordable Housing) 13100-P115 Revision C Proposed Street Scene 13100-P120 Proposed Roof Plans - House 1 and 2 13100-P121 Proposed Roof Plans - House 3, 4 and 5 CM/14155 Topographical Survey (1) CM/14162 Topographical Survey (2) Mitigation Strategy for the protection of great crested newts, Ecological Consultancy Services, dated August 2014. Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development
Informative Notes to Applicant:
1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach and works with applicants/agents on development proposals in a manner focused on solutions by:
• offering a pre-application advice service,
• updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,
• by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter.
In this instance the agent • was provided with pre-application advice, • the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit
2 Surface Water Drainage - With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary.
Page 90 Connections are not permitted for the removal of groundwater. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777. Reason - to ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall not be detrimental to the existing sewerage system.
Where a developer proposes to discharge groundwater into a public sewer, a groundwater discharge permit will be required. Groundwater discharges typically result from construction site dewatering, deep excavations, basement infiltration, borehole installation, testing and site remediation. Groundwater permit enquiries should be directed to Thames Water’s Risk Management Team by telephoning 020 8507 4890 or by emailing [email protected] . Application forms should be completed on line via www.thameswater.co.uk/wastewaterquality . Any discharge made without a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991.
3 Please note that there is a Section 106 Agreement that applies to this permission.
4 Each property will need to purchase 1 x 240l green refuse and 1 x 240l black recycling bin and a glass box, to be left for collection at the kerbside.
CASE OFFICER: Nicky Powis 01730 234226 ———————————————————————————————————————
Page 91 SECTION 1 Item 3 Land West of Bay Tree Cottage, Main Road, Bentley
Proposed site plan
Proposed street view
Page 92 SECTION 1 Item 3 Land West of Bay Tree Cottage, Main Road, Bentley
Front elevation House 1
Front elevation House 2
Page 93 SECTION 1 Item 3 Land West of Bay Tree Cottage, Main Road, Bentley
Front elevation House 3
Front elevation House 3 & 4
Page 94
Page 95 Item No.: 4
The information, recommendations, and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.
PROPOSAL OUTLINE - 6 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS (WITH SOME MATTERS RESERVED) LOCATION: Thedden Grange, Wivelrod Road, Bentworth, Alton, GU34 4AU REFERENCE: 36472/001 PARISH:Beech APPLICANT: TGRA Ltd CONSULTATION EXPIRY : 30 May 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY : 02 June 2014 COUNCILLOR: Cllr P D Burridge SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL
The application has been included on the agenda at the request of Cllr Burridge for the following reasons:
In order that the special circumstances applying to this case and the full range of planning issues can be considered by the Planning Committee.
Site and Development
Thedden Grange is located in an area of countryside north of the village of Beech. The estate has its origins in the 12th century but the main house and outbuildings date predominantly from the early 19th century. The house stands on the western side of a 17 ha estate. The main driveway to the development is off Bentworth Road, to the north side of the estate. There is a second access in the south-west corner of the site, which links to Wivelrod Road via a bridleway. Although of historic interest, the house is not a listed building.
The estate and large country house were purchased in 1975 by the applicants – 7 separate families - who converted the near derelict house and some outbuilding elements into seven residential homes, forming a co-operative, self-reliant community. Five of the existing residential units are within the area of the main house, with a sixth immediately adjacent within part of the original coach house complex and a seventh unit set within a complex of outbuildings in the south-western corner of the site. The communal areas comprise the original coach house, outbuildings including stables and barns, a large greenhouse, walled vegetable gardens, lawns and wooded areas. Farm land associated with the estate is actively farmed and is shared by the 7 parties.
Page 96 The communal buildings are used as workshops, stabling, storage, and for gardening and agricultural equipment and facilities. While each party owns their individual house, all the land and communal buildings are communally owned and managed by the Thedden Grange Residents Association Ltd (TGRA). This approach secured the successful restoration of the house and estate and created a unique community environment where the families have remained and children were brought up. The original 7 families continue to own and occupy the estate and seven dwellings today. The original community consisted of 23 individuals, including young children, and the number of residents peaked at 30. In 1976, the age range was 0-40 years, but as children have grown up and left, the age range of the 16 resident owners is now 64-74 years. Further detail on the community use of the property and the ownership and management of the estate is set out in the information submitted in support of the application.
The owners are keen to retain the community and several of the younger generation who were brought up at Thedden Grange are interested in returning if suitable accommodation can be made available. As the original owners grow older they recognise that action is required if the community is going to survive and continue to operate around the 7 original families. In the coming years the existing residents are likely to require more suitable accommodation for their age and care needs, either by altering the residential units or by ‘downsizing’ The latter would require moving out of the Thedden Grange community unless suitable accommodation could be provided on the estate. In the meantime, the age and resources available to the existing residents means that the upkeep of the large estate and buildings is becoming more challenging.
The applicants have put forward a plan which proposes an enlargement of the community to allow the older generation to remain on the estate but creates an opportunity for the younger generations within the families to return and take on the management of the community.
The outline application proposes 6 new residential units which are designed primarily for an ageing generation with each unit being self-contained for a couple or single person with the flexibility to be adjusted to suit varying degrees of mobility and levels of care. A number of options for providing additional accommodation were considered by the applicants, including the potential for conversion of the remaining communal buildings, extensions to the existing residential units and development within the walled garden which lies to the south of the main complex of buildings. These were options were dismissed as being either impractical or unsympathetic for a number of reasons. The six new build units proposed are as follows:
• Five units (of between 80 and 120 sqm) on a site known as Barn Field adjacent to the main driveway approximately 100m north-east of the main house. This site currently contains a hay barn, tractor shed and reed bed which would be removed to accommodate the development. The tractor shed would be rebuilt on-site adjacent to the proposed houses and the hay barn would be replaced by a new barn on adjacent land to the north of the site.
• One unit (100 sqm) on a site known as Bothy Paddock in the south-western corner of the estate, close to the southern access point and to the existing unit 7.
Page 97 The application is in outline form but it is proposed that the units would have all the main living areas, including the main bedroom, on the ground floor with potential for some accommodation at first floor level or within a mezzanine. The applicants have indicated the potential for a 7th unit through the conversion of a Game Store which lies between the coach house block and the walled garden but that does not form part of the current application.
Relevant Planning History
None relevant
Development Plan Policies and Proposals
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014)
CP1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development CP2 - Spatial Strategy CP10 - Spatial strategy for housing CP11 - Housing tenure, type and mix CP13 - Affordable housing on residential development sites CP18 - Provision of open space, sport and recreation and built facilities CP19 - Development in the countryside CP20 - Landscape CP21 - Biodiversity CP29 - Design CP31 - Transport CP32 - Infrastructure
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (2006) H14 - Other Housing Outside Settlement Policy Boundaries
Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The NPPF sets out three roles (economic, social and environmental) that should be performed by the planning system. The Framework states that pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life, including (but not limited to):
• making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages • moving from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains for nature • replacing poor design with better design • improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure and • widening the choice of high quality homes
Village Design Statement - The Parish of Beech Village Design Statement - non statutory planning guidance that has been the subject of public consultation and therefore is a material planning consideration.
Page 98 Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments
Landscape Officer - No landscape objection. A condition is recommended for details to be provided for construction of the access road to unit G and the parking area for units A-E, which pass through the root protection areas of valuable mature oak trees. The removal of about 3 young sycamores to accommodate the parking area is agreed. Planting of two standard oak trees is recommended within the parkland to the south east of the Barn Field site, to break up the glimpse views of the proposed new houses from Wivelrod Road.
EHDC Drainage Consultant - The site is located in flood zone 1 (low probability of flooding) and I am not aware of any historic flooding or drainage issues affecting the site. This is an unsewered area, requiring a package sewage treatment plant and EA consent. Drainage design will require a geotechnical site investigation to confirm satisfactory infiltration rates. No objections in principle, subject to satisfactory drainage systems for both foul and surface water. These can be covered by conditions.
County Rights of Way Officer - No comments received
County Highway Officer - This application is for the construction of 6 new dwellings in the grounds of the property Thedden Grange. Thedden Grange is rurally located on the outskirts of Alton. The surrounding roads are subject to the national speed limit for single carriageway roads; however due to the narrow and winding nature the actual traffic speeds are much lower with a low traffic volume. The dwellings are proposed to use the two existing accesses onto Wivelrod Road and Bentworth Road. The Wilvelrod Road access has good visibility in each direction and therefore is acceptable for use by the new dwelling. The Bentworth Road access has slightly less visibility due to trees and planting; however the access is currently in use with no known issues and the Highway Authority are unlikely to be able to defend an objection at appeal.
In line with East Hampshire District Council's adopted parking standards the 6 two- bedroom dwellings would require a total provision of 12 car parking spaces. Only 8 are proposed by the applicant; however there is ample room for additional on site parking and therefore there would be no expected detriment to highway safety were residents to park on other parts of the site. There is also, "unlimited", cycle parking in various outbuildings on site. The bin strategy is to use the same collection point as the existing dwellings. The application form states that soakaways will be used to drain private surface water. The applicant should satisfy themselves that the infiltration rates achievable are suited to the size of soakaway proposed. A Transport Contribution will be required in relation to the provision of 6 dwellings on the proposed site. The level of Transport Contribution relates directly to the impact of the proposed development through the formulaic approach set out in the Transport Contribution Policy, which attributes a cost per additional multimodal trip, based upon the known cost of providing transport infrastructure to support development. The trip rates for residential uses have been derived from assumed household occupancy levels. In this instance, an estimated multimodal trip rate of 7.0 trips per two-bedroom dwelling at a cost per multi-modal trip rate of £535. This equates to a contribution of £22,470 for the site.
Page 99 The additional trips will cause harm by worsening local congestion; this contribution is required to provide more sustainable travel choices and to manage growing travel demands in a sustainable way. In addition, the contribution will comply with the requirements of the East Hampshire District Council Local Plan Review policies. The contribution will be used to fund local access schemes including improvements to pedestrian and cycle facilities.
Beech Parish Council - No objection
Bentworth Parish Council - No objection on style or position however concerns were voiced that if permission is granted it may set precedent for other similar scale developments and would these houses be counted towards Bentworth’s allocation should Bentworth have an allocation.
Representations
One letter of support received.
Determining Issues
1. Principle of the proposed development 2. Siting and impact on the landscape & character and appearance of the area 3. Affordable housing provision 4. Vehicular access, parking & drainage arrangements 5. Impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents 6. Impact on biodiversity & trees 7. Financial contributions
Planning Considerations
1. Principle of the proposed development
Thedden Grange is located in an area of countryside, relatively remote from established settlements. Under normal circumstances, planning permission would not be granted for new dwellings unless they were required for a specific purpose relating to agriculture or some other activity for which a countryside location is necessary. Policy CP19 of the Core Strategy Local Plan is as follows:
CP19 - The approach to sustainable development in the countryside, defined as the area outside settlement policy boundaries, is to operate a policy of general restraint in order to protect the countryside for its own sake. The only development allowed in the countryside will be that with a genuine and proven need for a countryside location, such as that necessary for farming, forestry, or other rural enterprises (see Policy CP6). Within the South Downs National Park the pursuit of National Park purposes will be paramount .
The emphasis in the Joint Core Strategy, like the previous Local Plan is, therefore, to allow development in the countryside where it can be demonstrated that a countryside location is both necessary and justified. The policy aim is to maintain the landscape character and quality of the countryside and protect it for its intrinsic value.
Page 100 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as:
● the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or ● where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or ● where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or ● the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling.
The Council has adopted an Interim Housing Policy Statement (IHPS) to guide the release of greenfield sites directly adjacent settlements with a defined settlement policy boundary to assist in meeting the housing requirements of the District. The consideration of planning applications promoted through the IHPS are subject to specified criteria, set out in the interim policy, being satisfied. It is the intention of the IHPS to manage development outside settlement policy boundaries so that it is not allowed in the wrong locations nor inappropriate in scale or density relative to the size, role and character of the settlement in question. This Interim Policy is not considered to have any direct relevance to this proposal as the development is not proposed as general needs housing and is not adjacent to an SPB.
In this case, in simple terms, the proposal can be viewed as a scheme for 6 new-build dwellings in the countryside and, as such, contrary to the national and local countryside policies. It can also be considered as an attempt to create a form of 'granny annexe' accommodation, albeit on a multiple scale. It is acknowledged that it is relatively common for modest 'annexe' or 'granny flat' accommodation to be proposed in conventional single dwelling situations. In considering the need for 'annexe' accommodation in the conventional scenario (i.e. a single house in the countryside) the starting point would be to consider the potential options for creating accommodation either within an existing structure (e.g. within the main building or an outbuilding) or as an extension to the main building of appropriate scale. The applicants have already examined the potential for adapting existing structures or extending the main building but have ruled these out. There are no buildings within the complex capable or worthy of conversion that would meet the applicants requirements and extensions to the dwellings would seriously compromise the character of the existing building.
While the development is clearly aimed primarily at providing accommodation for the older generation who now occupy the main property, the scale of the units proposed suggests a form of accommodation that goes some way beyond the concept of an 'annexe' or 'granny flat'. The units are fully self-contained houses that could not be easily tied - from a legal perspective - to the main dwellings. The applicants have proposed some form of tie to the TGRA and have stated "Each new unit...would be incorporated within the Community's legal structure so that each unit would be legally tied to the existing restrictions and responsibilities while enjoying the same benefits as the existing 7 units. As such they would not be 'open market' properties" . This might address the community's internal management but would not ensure that the new units remained tied to the existing units in perpetuity. Ultimately, it would be difficult to devise a workable s106 undertaking which would prevent them from being sold on the open market at some point in the future.
Page 101 The NPPF and Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy promote the presumption in favour of sustainable development. In this case, the development would not be regarded as 'sustainable' in the conventional sense as the site is in an area which is not particularly sustainable in terms of access to public transport, services and community facilities. The applicants argue that allowing this development would make the existing Thedden Grange community more sustainable, allowing for a situation where the accommodation provides for three generations to live as a single community, where communal support is provided, which can take some of the burden away from the conventional care and community services.
The NPPF allows for 'enabling development' to assist in the preservation of a heritage asset. Although Thedden Grange is not listed it is of historic interest and the applicants have suggested that the development will help generate funds (and younger manpower) to help in the maintenance of the house, coach house and estate.
The main consideration in this case, therefore, is whether the principle and scale of the development is acceptable, having regard to the national and local policies which relate to development in the countryside. Having examined the policies, it is concluded that the proposal can only be considered as comprising new dwellings and that they do not fit the exceptions identified in either the NPPF or the Core Strategy/Local Plan. Having considered all of the above it is concluded that the principle of the development is contrary to national and local policies which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake.
2. Siting and impact on the landscape & character and appearance of the area
The main site for 5 of the dwellings already contains two barns, the approach being to minimise landscape impact by focusing most of the development on a site which currently contains structures. This approach is preferable to a development on a previously undeveloped area.
The proposed locations are relatively discreet and ensure there is no significant impact on the historic buildings. The developments would be close to and would utilise the existing accesses with the need for minimal additional hard surface. Both sites are well screened by mature trees and as a result there is no significant landscape impact. The design approach, in terms of general built form, external appearance and building fabric, is aimed at minimising visual impact and maximising sustainability, which is appropriate for new buildings in the countryside. In considering their design approach, the applicants have had regard to the Beech Village Design Statement which aims to protect the landscape and built environment.
3. Affordable housing provision
There is no provision for formal affordable housing, either by direct provision or via a contribution.
4. Vehicular access, parking & drainage arrangements
The Highway Authority raise no objections to the proposals subject to a financial contribution.
Page 102 The appropriate level of car parking can be provided on site and the additional traffic movements generated by the development would not result in any capacity problems on the surrounding network of lanes and roads. Any minimal increase in vehicular activity at the southern access point would be unlikely to cause any significant conflict with the use of the adjacent bridleway.
The Council's Drainage Consultant has considered the proposals and raises no objection subject to conditions.
5. Impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents
There are no immediate neighbours other than the applicants' own properties and the additional activity generated by the proposed development (ie increased traffic & pedestrian movements) would have no significant impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by occupiers of houses in the surrounding area.
6. Impact on biodiversity & trees
There are no ecological designations in the immediate vicinity of the site. No formal ecology survey has been carried out by the applicants but as the proposed areas for development comprise managed grazing land the potential for protected species is low. There are mature unprotected trees close to the development sites but the applicants have indicated that the root protection zones would not be affected. Some younger sycamore specimens are to be removed to accommodate additional car parking and new planting is also proposed. If permission was to be granted conditions could be attached to address these issues.
7. Financial contributions
Developments which propose ancillary annexe accommodation would not normally attract a need for developer contributions. However, the proposal would result in six new dwellings and in accordance with the adopted Joint Core Strategy policies CP13, CP14, CP16, CP18, CP31, CP32 and East Hants Local Plan Policy T2 provision should be made for affordable housing, public open space, community facilities and transportation improvements.
The applicant has not made a specific case for seeking an exemption from these financial contributions or completed a S.106 legal agreement to provide for these contributions. As such, the proposal is contrary to the aims of policy CP32 (Infrastructure) of the JCS.
Conclusion
The applicants are seeking to extend their community and provide accommodation that will allow for 3 generations to live on site. The community at Thedden Grange has been remarkably successful and it is understandable that the original owners want to remain within the community and also provide an opportunity for a younger generation to return and inherit the future management of the community and maintenance of the estate. The provision of some form of modest annexe accommodation would normally be acceptable in principle but the provision of new dwellings is, in simple terms, contrary to policy if there is no specific justification.
Page 103 While the choice of sites and the design proposed aims to minimise the impacts, it is concluded that the principle of the development is contrary to national and local policies.
RECOMMENDATION
REFUSAL for the following reasons:
1 The proposal is contrary to the principle of protecting the countryside for its own sake and without sufficient justification for the proposed development it would be an undesirable extension of development outside any Settlement Policy Boundary thereby leading to an unwarranted growth of activity and building in the countryside to the detriment of the character of the area and contrary to policy CP19 of the East Hampshire District Joint Core Strategy.
2 The proposal, by virtue of its location in an area of open countryside and without adequate justification is considered to be unsustainable, contrary to policy CP2 of the East Hampshire District Joint Core Strategy.
3 Without a Section 106 legal agreement or unilateral undertaking from the applicant agreeing to the following provisions:
• Securing affordable housing provision on site or a financial contribution in lieu • Financial contribution towards local community facilities • Financial contribution towards public open space • Financial contribution towards transportation improvements
which are considered to be necessary to make the development acceptable the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies CP13, CP14, CP16, CP18, CP31 and CP32 of the Joint Core Strategy and the Council's 'Guide to Developers' Contributions and Other Planning Requirements'.
Informative Notes to Applicant:
1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach and works with applicants/agents on development proposals in a manner focused on solutions by:
• offering a pre-application advice service,
• updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,
• by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter.
Page 104 In this instance the applicant was provided with pre-application advice.
CASE OFFICER: Julia Mansi 01730 234236 ———————————————————————————————————————
Page 105
SECTION 1 Item 4 Thedden Grange, Wivelrod Road, Bentworth, Alton, GU34 4AU
Proposed site plan
Page 106
SECTION 1 Item 4 Thedden Grange, Wivelrod Road, Bentworth, Alton, GU34 4AU
Proposed co-housing scheme
Page 107
SECTION 1 Item 4 Thedden Grange, Wivelrod Road, Bentworth, Alton, GU34 4AU
Block plan unit G
Page 108 Page 109
Item No.: 5 The information, recommendations and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.
PROPOSAL Partial demolition to the rear of The Palace Cinema, Alton, and erection of 4 x 2 bedroom flats and associated parking. LOCATION: New Palace Cinema, Normandy Street, Alton, GU34 1DE REFERENCE 32440/004 PARISH: Alton APPLICANT: Mr Jeyasingam CONSULTATION 26 September 2014 EXPIRY : APPLICATION EXPIRY : 22 July 2014 COUNCILLOR(S): Cllr N Branch SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
This application has been included on the agenda at the request of Councillor Branch to consider the quality and volume of new residential space involved, and related parking and traffic implications
Site and Development
The Palace Cinema is a 2 and 3 storey building with a cinema frontage onto Normandy Street, within Alton's Conservation area. The property is not classified as a listed building but is an important feature within the Normandy Street streetscene.
The site is surrounded by properties in various uses. To the rear of the premises, the building comprises a mix of materials and roof forms with gates/access onto a private, unmade lane served from Victoria Road. The lane services other properties fronting Normandy Street and Victoria Road. There are a number of outbuildings to the rear of the site which are used as offices.
This application is for the partial demolition of the rear of the cinema and erection of four x two bedroomed flats. The proposal would see the removal of a bingo hall but retention of the cinema at the front of the building. The scheme includes four car parking spaces, cycle storage facilities and bin storage areas.
Relevant Planning History
32440/001 - Display of illuminated projecting signs (as amended by plans received 17/6/99). Consent 16/07/1999
Page 110 32440/003 - Conversion of loft space to front of building into a one bedroomed flat with external staircase. Permitted 10/10/2006 Development Plan Policies and Proposals
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014)
CP2 - Spatial Strategy CP11 - Housing tenure, type and mix CP18 - Provision of open space, sport and recreation and built facilities CP24 - Sustainable construction CP27 - Pollution CP29 - Design CP31 - Transport CP32 - Infrastructure
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (2006)
HE2 - Alterations and Extensions to Buildings
Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Alton Conservation Area Conservation areas are designated areas of special architectural interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. It is the quality and interest of the area rather than individual buildings which is important. The consequence of conservation area designation is not to preserve conservation areas unchanged but requires that new development is designed in a sensitive manner which has regard to the special character of the area. The Council’s policy on allowing development within conservation areas is set out in Policy HE4 of the East Hampshire Local Plan: Second Review, where development will be permitted only where it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area.
Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments
Archaeology Officer - Recommends imposing a condition on any permission given.
Conservation Officer - Recommends conditions.
Ecology Officer - Required further details of clarification over bats now received. Highways Officer: At the time of writing the report the Highway Officer recommends refusal regarding inadequate visibility, parking, manoeuvring provision (amended plans are expected to address this issue, prior to the Committee meeting).
Environmental Health Officer - No objections as any potential noise issues would be dealt with under a subsequent Building Regulations application.
Alton Town Council - No objections.
Page 111
Representations
27 letters of representation have been received from third parties, 12 in favour and 15 against the proposals.
Of those against the scheme, the following points are raised: a) environmental conditions for the ground floor flat would be unacceptable with car parking outside the windows and a bedroom window being under the first floor structure; b) provision of one car space per flat surely does not meet adopted standards; c) access to the parking facility would be problematic as the supports to the first floor structure require moving back from the lane; d) commitments in the energy statement do not go far enough and features such as solar and thermal PV panels could be added; e) access at bottom of track is too narrow and impaired vision onto Victoria Road. It needs complete maintenance and more vehicles would add to it's poor condition; f) track road floods when it rains and needs adequate drainage; g) overlooking of and loss of privacy to established neighbours - size, layout and density of flats; h) what about use of utilities, emptying of bins, delivering of post and other vehicles using the track especially larger vehicles; i) noise and disturbance generally; j) turning facility will put other property at great risk of damage; k) short term inconvenience from building works would aggravate residents of Normandy Street as work and traffic would cause issues and lead to a safety issue; and l) loss of commercial space should not be permitted.
Of those in favour, the following points were raised: a) if by redeveloping the bingo hall into flats the cinema can be kept then the scheme is wholeheartedly supported. The cinema is used by locals and is important to the community; b) the town is lacking facilities and elderly people cannot afford to travel to Basingstoke or Winchester to visit the cinema; c) the design looks good; d) the development would enhance what is a bit of a mess of an area and provide decent compact accommodation in a very convenient location; e) it will not impact on the street scene of Normandy Street; f) development of the rear of the cinema would be a definite improvement adjacent to my property; g) the concerns over access can be overcome and the replacement of an uneconomic and unpopular facility will lead to a much reduced number of vehicular movements to and from the proposed car parking facilities; h) during 15 years of living in Alton has never known of any accidents where suggested and on counting the number of cars parked on a Sunday counted 43 on this road, so cannot see that 4 more cars would make a difference; and i) most residents of Buttery's Court and Normandy Street all have parking spaces. The road is used by 15 residents of Victoria Road and the residents of Buttery's Court and the flats along Normandy Street for access to their garages.
Page 112
Determining Issues
1. Principle of development 2. Residential amenity 3. Parking and highways 4. Open space provision, environmental improvements and integrated transport measures 5. Energy conservation
Planning Considerations
1. Principle of development
The Joint Core Strategy at Policy CP4 seeks to protect employment sites unless it can be shown that the site is no longer suitable. Factors to influence the loss of such land would include: a) its size, shape, location or access; or b) proof of financial unviability for industrial or business use; and c) no reasonable offer having been received for sale or rent, following realistic and active marketing undertaken to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
This proposal seeks to demolish a bingo hall that is a separate entity from the cinema fronting Normandy Street. The bingo hall has been marketed and there has been evidence presented to show that the current use is unviable. The information shows that there is little opportunity for there to be any potential buyer for the current use. However, the cinema at the front of the site is well supported locally and it is an integral part of this scheme to ensure the cinema element of the site remains viable.
There is no objection in principle to the proposal subject to normal development control criteria.
2. Residential amenity
The building is sited within the town centre of Alton, surrounded by various uses both commercial and residential. The proposed building would be attached to the remainder of the cinema building and it is essential to ensure that future occupants of the building are not adversely affected by noise and disturbance. The Council's Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection to the proposal. Noise insulation would be subject to Building Regulations.
Concern has been raised regarding possible damage to the access road and encroachment onto private property. Whilst these concerns have been noted, they are not material planning considerations, but private matters between landowners. Further concern has been received over potential overlooking of residential properties. It should be born in mind that the distance from the flats to the nearest dwelling would be in the order of 40 metres. The nationally accepted standard for a minimum separation of dwellings (window to window) is 21 metres. Therefore, the proposals could not be deemed to unacceptably effect the amenities of those properties that look towards the proposal. The proposal, therefore, accords with Policy CP27 of the Joint Core Strategy.
Page 113
3. Parking and Highways
Access to the site is via an unmade track from Victoria Road, Alton. The principle as the redevelopment of the building to residential as this would result in a reduction in vehicular movements from the existing commercial use. The applications shows four parking spaces would be provided within the existing car park for this development. The Council's Highways Officer has been consulted on the application and has raised objection solely with regard to vehicle manoeuvring facilities. At the time of writing this report, further amended plans have been sort, which should show an acceptable layout for the parking spaces which provides adequate vehicle manoeuvring facilities to and from the car parking spaces. Additionally, the scheme proposes adequate cycle storage facilities.
4. Open space and Environmental Improvements.
The proposal does not include any provision for on-site public open space, nor would there be sufficient room for any space to be provided. A financial contribution has been received towards the provision of off-site public open space. The proposal is, therefore, in accordance with Policy CP18 of the Joint Core Strategy.
A financial contribution has also been received towards Environmental Improvements in accordance with Policy CP24. As there is a reduction in vehicular movements as a result of the proposal, a contribution towards Transport is not required in this instance.
5. Energy Conservation
Policy CP24 requires new residential development to be built to code for sustainable homes, level 4. A suitable condition is recommended to achieve this standard.
Conclusion
The proposed development would result in the removal of a sizeable and unsightly addition to a Conservation Area and its replacement with an improved extension to the Cinema. The proposals would comply with this Authority's standards for construction together with providing acceptable amenity and parking provision. The issue of the private drive adjacent is not a planning matter but, in any case, would potentially have less traffic associated with the four flats than with an established commercial use currently operating as a bingo hall.
Additionally, the proposal would link in with the overall viability of the site, to assist in retaining the remaining commercial cinema. A Unilateral Undertaking has been completed in conjunction with the Authority's legal department that incorporates monies for public open space provision and environmental improvements.
RECOMMENDATION Subject to receipt of a satisfactory parking layout, then PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this planning permission. Reason - To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning
Page 114 Act 1990
2 Notwithstanding any indication of materials that may have been given in the application or in the absence of such information, no development shall start on site until details including manufacturers details of all the materials to be used for external facing and roofing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure that the materials used in the construction of the approved development harmonise with the surroundings.
3 No development shall start on site until details of a scheme for foul and surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details should include provision for all surface water drainage from parking areas and areas of hardstanding. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before of any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for drainage. Note: The applicant is requested to contact the Council's Environmental Services Works Operations Section as soon as possible regarding the above condition.
4 Prior to the commencement of work large scale drawings of the windows and glazed doors comprising 1:20 elevations, sections together with details of the proposed finishes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason - The fenestration is an important component of the design. The additional information is sought to ensure quality in the detailing and modelling of the elevation achieved by minimising frame sections, the careful choice of materials and finish; and by setting the windows in a reveal.
5 Before use of the development starts provision for parking shall have been made within the site in accordance with the approved plans and shall be retained solely for parking purposes thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision for the approved development.
6 No work shall start on site until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation and recording which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure that the archaeological interest of the historic building/site is properly safeguarded and recorded.
Page 115
7 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars:
Application Form Planning, Heritage, Design & Access Statement (including Energy Statement) Protected Species Walkover Survey Bat Assessment Transport Statement 001 Rev PL/00 Existing Block Plan 002 Rev PL/00 Existing Site Plan 003 PL/00 Existing Ground Floor Plan 004 Rev PL/00 Existing First Floor Plan 005 Rev PL/00 Existing Second Floor Plan 006 Rev PL/00 Existing Roof Plan 007 Rev PL/00 Existing Elevations 010 Rev PL/00 Proposed Ground Floor Plan 011 Rev PL/00 Proposed First Floor Plan 012 Rev PL/00 Proposed Second Floor Plan 013 Rev PL/00 Proposed Roof Plan 014 Rev PL/00 Proposed Elevations 015 Rev PL/00 Proposed Elevations 01 016 Rev PL/00 Proposed Elevations 02 017 Rev PL/00 Sections Existing and Proposed 000 Rev PL/00 Existing Location Plan 008 Rev PL/00 Proposed Block Plan 009 Rev PL/01 Proposed Site Plan
Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development
Informative Notes to Applicant:
1 The applicant is reminded that bats and their roosts receive strict legal protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 . All work must stop immediately if bats, or evidence of bat presence (e.g. droppings, bat carcasses or insect remains), are encountered at any point during this development. Should this occur, further advice should be sought from Natural England and/or a professional ecologist. 2 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach and works with applicants/agents on development proposals in a manner focused on solutions by:
• offering a pre-application advice service,
• updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the
Page 116 processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,
• by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter.
In this instance the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit and no further assistance was required
CASE OFFICER: Gordon Currie 01730 234233 ———————————————————————————————————————
Page 117
SECTION 1 Item 5 New Palace Cinema, Normandy Street, Alton, GU34 1DE
Amended proposed ground floor plan
Page 118
SECTION 1 Item 5 New Palace Cinema, Normandy Street, Alton, GU34 1DE
Proposed first floor plan
Page 119
SECTION 1 Item 5 New Palace Cinema, Normandy Street, Alton, GU34 1DE
Proposed second floor plan
Page 120
SECTION 1 Item 5 New Palace Cinema, Normandy Street, Alton, GU34 1DE
Amended proposed elevations
Page 121 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 122
Page 123
Item No.: 06
The information, recommendations, and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.
PROPOSAL Change of use from shop (Class A1) to Cafe (Class A3) LOCATION: Ian Allan Travel, 19 Market Street, Alton, GU34 1HA REFERENCE : 31232/004 PARISH:Alton APPLICANT: Mr Ormond CONSULTATION EXPIRY : 27 June 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY : 17 July 2014 COUNCILLOR: Cllr N Branch SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
This application is included on the agenda at the discretion of the Service Manager Planning Development.
Site and Development
The property lies within the town centre of Alton, within the Settlement Policy Boundary and the Alton Conservation Area. Market Street comprises of a mix of retail units (A1) together with other commercial users including the Kings Head Public House. The main shopping facilities in Alton are in the High Street, with Market Square and the lanes leading to it providing a secondary level of shopping, with independent traders and non- retail uses proliferating. Market Square itself is largely occupied by restaurants and public houses
19 Market Street consists of a two-storey property with retail premises at ground floor and a taxi office over. The retail unit comprises an L-shaped main area, with office and toilet to one side. There is a small enclosed yard and a small store to the rear. The property is listed Grade II and described as follows:
Nos 19 and 21 Market Street "Mid C19. 2 storeys; 3 bays, that on the left recessed a little. Stuccoed; tile roof. Ground floor with central doorway with pilasters and entablature and flanked on each side by a single contemporary shop front also with pilasters and entablature. 1st floor with 2 recessed sash windows. The recessed bay to the left with another contemporary shop front with pilasters and entablature and, on the 1st floor, a single recessed sash window."
This application seeks permission for change of use from retail (A1) to cafe/restaurant (A3). No external alterations are proposed and internally the changes are limited to fittings.
Page 124 This application seeks permission for change of use from retail (A1) to cafe/restaurant (A3). No external alterations are proposed and internally the changes are limited to fittings.
Relevant Planning History
31232/003 – Internal alterations and painting of external wall, windows and doors. Permission 24 November 2006
Development Plan Policies and Proposals
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014)
CP1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development CP2 - Spatial Strategy CP27 - Pollution CP29 - Design
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (2006)
S2 - Primary Shopping Frontages HE6 - Change of Use of a building in a conservation area
Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
II Listed Building The works relate to a listed building and the Council is required to have a special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest.
Alton Conservation Area Conservation areas are designated areas of special architectural interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. It is the quality and interest of the area rather than individual buildings which is important. The consequence of conservation area designation is not to preserve conservation areas unchanged but requires that new development is designed in a sensitive manner which has regard to the special character of the area. The Council’s policy on allowing development within conservation areas is set out in Policy HE4 of the East Hampshire Local Plan: Second Review, where development will be permitted only where it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area.
Town Design Statement - Alton Town Design Statement - non statutory planning guidance that has been the subject of public consultation and therefore is a material planning consideration.
Alton 2020 Town Plan 2005
Holybourne Village Plan 2010
Page 125
Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments
Environmental Health Services (Pollution) – Comment. I have concerns about the proposed change of use of 19/21 Market Street, Alton to A3 cafe/restaurant due to the potential for noise and odour to impact adjacent premises and the surrounding area. It may be possible to address these concerns, but at this stage insufficient information has been submitted by the applicant to enable full comments to be made.
The unit is mainly surrounded by other commercial uses with the closest residential use appearing to be above 23 Market Street and to the rear at Vicarage Hill Mews. An A3 use will require some form of odour control to limit the impact of cooking smells affecting the surrounding area. It is difficult to tell where such a system would be located within this commercial unit without impacting the amenities enjoyed by occupiers of nearby premises, or understanding where cooking will take place onsite. To enable hot food to be prepared it may be necessary to attach a flue to the listed building. Work would also be required to ensure cooking smells do not affect the taxi office use on the first floor by passing through the structure of the listed building.
Although it may be possible to take a conditional approach in some applications of this nature, I feel that due to the position, layout and age of the building, it may be difficult to apply adequate mitigation measures to protect the occupiers of nearby premises from impact from noise and odour associated with an A3 use.
Alton Town Council – No objection.
Representations
9 letters of objection have been received and a petition with 258 signatures. The main concerns highlighted within these documents are as follows: a) Loss of retail space within the city centre; b) Concern with balance of retail and cafe/restaurants; c) Additional A3 use detracts from current pool of eating places; d) Noise; and e) Odours.
Determining Issues
1. Principle of development 2. Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties 3. Impact on the character of the area and highway implications
Page 126
Planning Considerations
1. Principle of development
The principle test of policy with regards to this proposed change of use is the loss of retail space. Policy S2 of the Local Plan: Second Review (LP) states that where proposals for non-retail uses in the primary shopping frontages of Alton and Petersfield would have a detrimental effect on the interest and appearance of the shopping frontage or would undermine the vitality and viability of the shopping centre as a whole, such proposals either for change of use or redevelopment for non-retail uses will be refused. Further to this, a test is required in order to ascertain whether the loss of retail is harmful to the shopping frontage. In implementing Policy S2 the objective is to ensure that proposals for change of use or redevelopment to a non-retail use do not result in either a continuous street frontage of three or more non-retail uses or more than 40% of the street frontage being in non-retail use, the street frontage being measured as 50 metres either side of the application site. A shop is defined as set out in Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, 2005
Following a site visit, it is accepted that the proposed change of use satisfies the requirements of policy S2. The three units directly to the east are all retail and include The Aga Shop, Between The Lines and Quirky Women. To the west lies the frontage for Alton Taxi (non-retail, offices above 19), Alton Eyecare (retail) and a Barbers shop (retail). Policy CP1 of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) applies to development within the Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) where there is a presumption in favour of development. Policy CP2 identifies a sustainable hierarchy of SPB and sets out five levels of sustainable settlements. The application site falls within one of the identified SPB and, given that the proposal is for the change of use of a building, the principle of the development is acceptable, subject to all other relevant planning considerations and policies which will be discussed below.
2. Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties
Policy CP27 of the JCS requires that developments would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Following public consultation, the application has received 9 letters of objection along with a submitted petition with 258 signatures. The petition was collated by four local restaurants and cafes and is signed by their users. The petition and other comments are objecting to the loss of retail space on this site. However, for the reasons given above, the principle for change of use from A1 to A3 is considered acceptable within this unit.
Having concluded that the principle of the use is acceptable, the issue of odors and smells needs to be addressed. The Council's Environmental Health team has highlighted some concern with regards to the implementation of a satisfactory extraction unit within this listed building. An A3 use will require some form of odor control to limit the impact of cooking smells affecting the surrounding area. It is difficult to tell where such a system would be located within this commercial unit without impacting the amenities enjoyed by occupiers of nearby premises, or understanding where cooking will take place on site.
Page 127 Following consideration of these comments, it is suggested that the onus be placed on the applicant through condition to propose such extraction methods. The following conditions are reasonable and acceptable method of control: • The development hereby permitted shall be used for only A1 or A2 uses or A3 uses which are categorised as low risk cooking types as defined by the DEFRA Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems 2005 Annex C: Risk Assessment for Odor, and for no other purposes in the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any Statutory Instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).
• Prior to an A3 use operating on site details of an extraction system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The equipment shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme.
It is accepted that as the building is Grade II Listed, the implementation of a satisfactory scheme for extraction may be difficult. Any discharge of condition application will be subject to consultation with environmental health and conservation teams and, if required, a listed building consent application will be requested if such works affect the fabric of the listed building.
3. Impact on the character of the area
Policy CP29 of the JCS seeks to ensure that development proposals are of exemplary standards of design and architecture, with a high quality external appearance that respect the area's particular characteristics. It requires that developments are sympathetic to their setting in terms of scale, height and massing, and their relationship to adjoining buildings, spaces around buildings, and that developments should make a positive contribution to the overall appearance of the area.
There are no physical alterations proposed to the premises other than potential signage, which is not being proposed at present and, therefore, cannot be assessed. Were an application for signage to be submitted, this would be determined against the appropriate policies at the time of submission. Further to this, listed buildings consent may be required for external facias works as well as any approved extraction units.
The property is located within a prime shopping frontage within Alton Conservation Area. The proposed use is considered to be consistent with what is likely to be found in a town centre location and there are currently no proposed external alterations likely to impact on the Conservation Area. The proposed development is, therefore, considered to preserve and enhance the character of the area.
Conclusion
The proposed change of use from vacant retail premises to cafe is considered to enhance the viability and vitality of Alton Town Centre and Conservation Area. There will be no significant impact on the neighbouring properties or the Conservation Area and the proposals are considered to be in keeping with the policies of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review and the Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy.
Page 128 RECOMMENDATION
PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this planning permission. Reason - To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
2 The development hereby permitted shall be used for only A1 or A2 uses or A3 uses which are categorised as low risk cooking types as defined by the DEFRA Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems 2005 Annex C: Risk Assessment for Odour, and for no other purposes in the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any Statutory Instrument revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification). Reason - To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.
3 Prior to an A3 use operating on site details of an extraction system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The equipment shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason - To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.
4 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars:
Application Form Planning Statement Heritage Statement Site Plan Location Plan and Floor Plan
Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development
Informative Notes to Applicant:
1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach and works with applicants/agents on development proposals in a manner focused on solutions by:
• offering a pre-application advice service,
Page 129 • updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,
• by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter.
In this instance the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit.
2 The applicant should be reminded that any proposed works to the listed building may require listed building consent. An application should be made to the Local Planning Authority in the event that any alterations may impact on the historic fabric of the listed building.
CASE OFFICER: Mark Webb 01730 234235 ———————————————————————————————————————
Page 130 SECTION 1 Item 6 Ian Allan Travel, 19 Market Street, Alton, GU34 1HA
Site Plan
Page 131 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 132