Item No.: 04 The information, recommendations and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.
PROPOSAL Outline - residential development of ten x 2 storey dwellings comprising 7 affordable and 3 market price homes, new vehicular access, informal open space, kick about area and landscaping LOCATION: Land South of Holly Cottage, Oakhanger Road, Oakhanger, Bordon REFERENCE : 53588 PARISH: Selborne APPLICANT: c/o Giles Wheeler-Bennettt CONSULTATION 25 June 2014 EXPIRY : APPLICATION EXPIRY : 14 August 2014 COUNCILLORS: Cllr D Ashcroft SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL
This application is included on the agenda as it is a departure from the adopted Local Plan and is being considered under the Interim Housing Policy Statement.
Site and Development
The application site lies on the eastern side of the village, within a countryside location (Oakhanger does not have a settlement policy boundary) and outside the South Downs National Park. The site is agricultural land used for grazing and has an area of 1.19ha and slopes down from the road by 2.3m to the field ditch on the eastern boundary. The site is bounded by residential property to the south and a commercial site to the north. There is residential development to the west and more agricultural land to the east.
The site boundaries consist of a Hawthorn hedge on the frontage and stock fencing and scattered trees to the remainder of the boundaries.
The proposed development is for 10 x 2 storey houses, made up of 7 affordable homes and 3 market dwellings. The affordable homes would be 2 bedroomed and the detached market housing would be 1 x 3 bedroomed and 2 x 4 bedroomed dwellings.
The application is in outline only with access, layout and scale to be considered. The residential development is approximately 0.48ha; the informal open space 0.45ha and kickabout area 0.26ha. In addition, the balance of land within the applicant’s ownership would be dedicated as an ecology zone and would include the pond close to the road and the marshy area to the north of the site.
The residential development is to be face the road, with vehicular access limited to two points; one serves eight dwellings and the other is a shared access for 2 houses. The main access would enter the site via the current field access and would serve rear parking and garages. This is backed by an area for structural landscaping, including a triangular orchard area. The second vehicular access would be shared by 2 market price dwellings and would be further to the north. A footpath is shown inside the hedge, providing access to the front of each property. The footpath adjacent the highway is to be retained.
Relevant Planning History
None
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 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)
Village Design Statement - Selborne Village Design Statement - non statutory planning guidance that has been the subject of public consultation and therefore is a material planning consideration.
Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments
Crime Prevention Design Advisor - Has made detailed comments about the safety of the site but raises no objection to the proposal.
EHDC Drainage - The Environment Agency's Flood Map shows a narrow flood plain (Flood Zone 2/3) associated with the Oakhanger Stream and the remainder of the site in Flood Zone 1 (low risk of flooding). However, the flood mapping on the Council's GIS system shows a large area of the site is susceptible to surface water flooding.
A FRA has been submitted, dated 19 March 2014, but this is not supported by a geotechnical site investigation. The final paragraph on page 12 states 'there are no records of the site having been previously affected by surface water or groundwater flooding'. This is incorrect. A previous site investigation carried out in August 2011, found a high water table, at 450 - 600mm below ground level. Following the recent very wet winter the water table on site has been observed by local residents as at or above ground level. These observations are supported by photographic evidence.
The development will increase surface water run-off and the FRA confirms that the site is not suitable for a SUDS system relying on soakage. The alternative option will be discharged to the Oakhanger Stream, with run-off attenuated to the current greenfield rates. This will require a balancing pond and due to the high water table, any pond will need to be very shallow and will require a large area of the site. This system would need to be carefully designed to ensure flood risk is not transferred elsewhere and the pond will require regular maintenance to ensure storage capacity is maintained.
On the basis of the current drainage/flooding information it is not clear that the site is suitable for development and will not increase flood risk elsewhere. I must object pending receipt of additional design details, supported by a geotechnical site investigation.
EHDC - Forward Planning - The site appears to fall within Policy CP14 of the Joint Core Strategy - Affordable Housing for Rural Communities. I suggest that the proposal will need to fit the criteria addressed in Policy CP14 to be justified. The site falls within close proximity to an SPA and SAC - Internationally Designated Sites (Policy CP22). Following advice from Natural England, the application does not include a Habitats Regulations Assessment. The applicant has submitted an Ecological Report and para 3.3 states that once development proposals are finalised they will fully consider significant effects on these sites. However, this needs to be done through the HRA as part of the planning application submission. Any Appropriate Assessment will need to consider any potential avoidance and mitigation measures regarding significant effects.
EHDC - Landscape - I disagree with the statements in the Design, Access and Planning Statement that the development:
• would not harm the overall character, quality, tranquillity and appearance of the countryside; • would not harm the intrinsic local character of the landscape, sense of place or local distinctiveness.
The proposal is to build houses on an attractive wet meadow on the edge of a village, close to the South Downs National Park and Shortheath Common SSSI, SAC and LNR, which would impact on the character of the landscape and the appearance of the countryside. The second access point would break through the boundary hedge which is a local landscape feature and the character of the public footpath through the meadow would change from rural to suburban. Drainage would be required to create a usable kickabout area on the meadow and this would change its character and biodiversity.
Environment Agency - Having screened the documents with regard to the low risk of the development type and location of the proposal, I can confirm that we have no comments to make. All surface water drainage issues are now dealt with by the relevant Local Authority.
Environmental Health - Contaminated Land - Adjacent to Site: Quarry Unknown Filled Land.
No objection subject to conditions being imposed on any approval
County Highway Officer – No objection in principle to development as proposed but, in the absence of a Road safety Audit, has objected to the scheme as it cannot be shown that the accesses are safe. Should a satisfactory Audit be submitted then Highways have no objection subject to conditions and a contribution towards transport measures. Concern was also raised about discharge of water to the ordinary water course to the east, which would require a separate consent from HCC.
Hampshire Fire and Rescue - Makes various comments about the scheme in terms of fire safety but raised no objection to the proposal.
Natural England -
Internationally and nationally designated sites The application site is within or in close proximity to a European designated site (also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect its interest features. European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’). The application site is in close proximity to the Wealden Heaths Phase II Special Protection Area (SPA) and to Shortheath Common Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which are European sites. The sites are also notified at a national level as Broxhead and Kingsley Commons and Shortheath Common Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) respectively. Please see the subsequent sections of this letter for our advice relating to SSSI features.
In considering the European site interest, Natural England advises that you, as a competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, should have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have The Conservation objectives for each European site explain how the site should be restored and/or maintained and may be helpful in assessing what, if any, potential impacts a plan or project may have.
Shortheath Common SAC/SSSI No objection Natural England notes that the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) has not been produced by your authority, but by the applicant. As competent authority, it is your responsibility to produce the HRA. We provide the advice enclosed on the assumption that your authority intends to adopt this HRA to fulfil your duty as competent authority.
Natural England notes that the applicant has screened the proposal to check for the likelihood of significant effects.
Their assessment concludes that the proposal can be screened out from further stages of assessment because significant effects are unlikely to occur, either alone or in combination. On the basis of information provided, Natural England concurs with this view. Wealden Heaths Phase II SPA/Broxhead and Kingsley Common SSSI
No objection The consultation documents provided by your authority do not include information to demonstrate that the requirements of Regulations 61 and 62 of the Habitats Regulations have been considered by your authority, ie the consultation does not include a Habitats Regulations Assessment with regards to this site.
In advising your authority on the requirements relating to Habitats Regulations Assessment, and to assist you in screening for the likelihood of significant effects, based on the information provided, Natural England offers the following advice: • the proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site • that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment
Protected species We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species. Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. The Standing Advice includes a habitat decision tree which provides advice to planners on deciding if there is a ‘reasonable likelihood’ of protected species being present. It also provides detailed advice on the protected species most often affected by development, including flow charts for individual species to enable an assessment to be made of a protected species survey and mitigation strategy.
You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation.
The Standing Advice should not be treated as giving any indication or providing any assurance in respect of European Protected Species (EPS) that the proposed development is unlikely to affect the EPS present on the site; nor should it be interpreted as meaning that Natural England has reached any views as to whether a licence may be granted. If you have any specific questions on aspects that are not covered by our Standing Advice for European Protected Species or have difficulty in applying it to this application please contact us at with details at [email protected].
Landscape No Natural England Comment – Advise consultation with National Park Authority Having reviewed the application Natural England does not wish to comment on this development proposal. The development however, relates to the South Downs National Park. We therefore advise you to seek the advice of the National Park. Their knowledge of the location and wider landscape setting of the development should help to confirm whether or not it would impact significantly on the purposes of the National Park designation. They will also be able to advise whether the development accords with the aims and policies set out in the National Park management plan. Biodiversity enhancements
This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the NPPF. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘ Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity ’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat ’.
Hampshire County Council Rights of Way - The proposed development site is crossed by Selborne Footpath no. 52a. We note that the applicant has indicated at section 6 of the application form that the proposals do not require any diversions/extinguishments and/or creation of rights of way. This is inconsistent with paragraph 3.7 of the Design & Access Statement, which states that “The public footpath would be retained and would largely follow its existing route with perhaps some very slight deviation on the ground”. Any change to the route of footpath, 52a even a ‘slight deviation’, would have to be formalised as a diversion, either under section 257 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 or under the Highways Act 1980.
Should consent be granted for this outline plan, the applicant should be made aware that here must be no surface alterations to the right of way, nor any works carried out which affect its surface, without first seeking the permission of Hampshire County Council, as Highway Authority. For the purposes of this proposal that permission would be required from this department of the County Council.
Housing Officer - East Hampshire District Council Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy was adopted on 8 th May 2014. As this site is outside of the settlement policy boundary it falls under CP14, affordable housing for rural communities. CP14 states that development will only be permitted in such locations if it is affordable housing for local people. The application is for 7 affordable dwellings and 3 market dwellings. Whilst CP14 does allow for up to 30% of market housing, this is for settlements with a settlement policy boundary. Oakhanger does not have a settlement policy boundary.
If Oakhanger is viewed as an exceptional circumstance, the applicant will need to demonstrate that the affordable housing on this site has been maximised. The applicant has not done this and nor has sufficient justification been provided for the market element of the scheme to consist of larger homes. There is no housing need evidence submitted and the justification for the affordable housing mix is absent. Only recently has housing need information been considered in Selborne parish as three separate villages and therefore the data held by EHDC is minimal. A housing needs survey would need to be carried out to determine the housing need. East Hampshire District Council is a member of HARAH, the Hampshire Alliance for Rural Affordable Housing. We work with Rural Housing Enablers from Community Action Hampshire who can carry out tried and tested housing needs surveys.
Whilst I welcome the provision of affordable housing in villages, without the justification of affordable housing need, this proposal cannot be supported.
South Downs National Park Authority - Thank you for consulting the South Downs National Park Authority about the application for planning permission to build 10 x 2 storey dwellings (7 affordable and 3 market houses) on land south of Holly Cottage, Oakhanger Road, Oakhanger.
The application site is extremely close to the National Park boundary. It is proposed to build houses on an attractive wet meadow on the edge of the village. The proposed development would adversely impact on the character of the landscape and appearance of the countryside. The proposal would lead to the suburbanisation of the area and result in a hard line of housing close to the Park’s boundary. Any development on this site would not be welcomed by the South Downs National Park Authority.
Thames Water - Advise that with regard to sewerage infrastructure capacity, we would not have any objection to the above planning application. Raises no objection regarding surface or ground water.
County Ecologist - Thank you for re-consulting me on this application. As discussed I have been awaiting comments from colleagues at HCC who are responsible for managing Shortheath Common SAC and I was eager to gauge their views before commenting further. In summary, I consider that the amended information provided sufficiently addressed issues relating to protected species but I remain unconvinced regarding the potential for impacts on the nearby Shortheath Common Special Area of Conservation (SAC). I am aware that Natural England have provided advice on this issue but I happen to disagree.
The application is now accompanied by an amended Habitat Regulations Screening Assessment (Enims, July 2014) and a Biodiversity Management Plan (Enims, July 2014). There is also a letter dated 16 th July 2014 from Mr Mark Rose of Enims which provides some additional information on ecological matters.
On the issue of impacts to designated sites, Natural England have now commented four times on this application and have, since 30th June 2014, raised no objections. This is in contrast to their initial comment dated 27th May 2014 in which they state: “the wet ditches on the application site link to Oakhanger Stream which runs adjacent to Shortheath Common SAC/SSSI, resulting in the potential for impact. Although the report states that the presence of this designation is considered unlikely to be prohibitive in terms of the development, further information is needed, based on the finalised form of the proposals in order to fully consider the potential for significant effects through pollution during the construction stage of the development and subsequent impacts on the SAC; potential for raised nutrient levels (post construction) in the stream as a result of the development and subsequent impacts on the SAC; impacts on the hydrology of the stream (during and post construction) and subsequent impacts on the SAC ”. As I have stated previously, I do not understand how NE were able to reach this opinion when the resubmitted HRA Screening report actually addressed none of those issues in adequate detail (or failed to address them at all). Admittedly, the current iteration of the HRA (dated July 2014) does provide some additional information but again simply concludes that because a) there is a proposed SUD system and b) any discharge into the Oakhanger Stream will be distant from the SAC, “ no significant effects to the qualifying features of the SAC are anticipated to result from pollution or nutrient run-off ”.
It appears obvious to me (and I am certainly not a hydrologist) that there is potential for impacts to the Oakhanger Stream (e.g. through run-off, nutrient enrichment, siltation during both the construction and operational phases etc.) which in turn flows directly alongside/into the SAC. Indeed, the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (Mr Paul Garrod, March 2014) states that “ storm rainfall and runoff will either infiltrate through the soils or drain naturally down slope towards the ditches on the east and north east boundaries ”. I simply do not see any firm evidence that this risk has been sufficiently analysed to enable NE to remove their previous objection – none of their specific issues from 27th May appear to have been addressed.
There is no evidence presented to conclude that the proposed drainage solution will result in no impact to the Oakhanger Stream which does, in reality, form the boundary of the SAC and is thus essential to its hydrological regime. For the HRA to state that impacts are unlikely because “ Shortheath Common drainage discharges to the Oakhanger Stream, as opposed to Oakhanger Stream flowing into the Common ” is to miss the point.
However, I am aware that on matters pertaining to European designated sites and SSSIs, NE is the statutory advisor and so their comments carry perhaps greater weight that those of the LPA’s ecological consultee. I simply point out therefore that I disagree with NE’s conclusion and cannot see the evidence they have used to enable them to have reached that conclusion.
In respect to protected species and wider ecological mitigation and enhancement measures, the Biodiversity Management Plan provides some basic outline measures (for example, there is still no detail provided in relation to the composition of the marshy grassland – I do not consider that a list of two plant species is really adequate for what is described in the report as Priority Habitat). These measures are generally acceptable and I would therefore request that a fully-detailed management plan is secured via a suitably-worded condition.
Selborne Parish Council - The Parish Council objects to this application on the following grounds: - The village has no settlement policy boundary for the reason that it is an unsustainable location in the countryside and is therefore unsuitable for development e.g. there are no shops, facilities, regular bus service. - The proposed site is a Green Field site. - The proposed site is on a flood plain that is still under 1 foot of water following the heavy winter rains. - The proposal includes a mix of affordable and market housing on a Green Field site and there is no demonstrable need for this quantity of housing in this village and the need in the parish is likely to be met by other means. - The proposed site is within a very small village that has an intrinsic open settlement character with houses along one side of the road. - The traffic accessing the proposed site would be very close to the narrowest part of the road with a blind corner. - The school catchment for housing on the proposed site would necessitate children walking along the narrowest part of the road to the bus stop. - The proposed site lies within 400m of Shortheath Common which is a SAC yet no HRA has been undertaken.
Representations
Thirty seven representations have been received, with 36 objecting on the following grounds: a) the proposed development is out-of-character with the area; b) there is no need for affordable housing in the area, with Whitehill/Bordon being developed a few miles away; c) the proposed development would be overlooked and cause overlooking causing a loss of privacy; d) the proposed houses are on a dangerous bend; e) the proposed development will cause an increase in noise and disturbance; f) not a sustainable/suitable location; g) the site is waterlogged most of the year and there is significant on site flooding; h) there is no pavement outside the site; i) the proposed development will make the traffic problems worse; j) the proposed development will have a significant impact on wildlife; k) the entrance to the kickabout area opens straight onto the road with no footpath; l) the site is a greenfield site within a countryside location; m) there is no identified need for affordable housing; n) the site was rejected by EHDC SHLAA as the site is unrelated to the main settlement and there are landscape and flooding impacts; o) the proposal will increase the density of development in the village; p) the proposal will set a precedent for further development in the village; q) development is unsustainable; and r) there is already an abundance of play facilities in the village and no need for any more.
One letter raising no objection has been received.
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
Planning Considerations
1. Development plan and material considerations
As required by Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, applications must be determined in line with the adopted plan for the area, unless material considerations apply. The development plan for EHDC comprises the 'saved' policies of the 2006 Local Plan: Second Review and the policies set out in the newly adopted Joint Core Strategy.
A significant material consideration is the NPPF, particularly Paragraph 49 which confirms that, whilst the local planning authority does not have a five year housing supply, relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date. East Hampshire District Council does not have a five year supply of housing.
The effect of Paragraph 49 of the NPPF is that saved Local Plan policies and JCS policies which restrict market housing development within the countryside beyond designated settlement policy boundaries (SPBs) are, therefore, not considered up-to-date. Whilst many objectors to the application point to restrictions on development outside settlement policy boundaries as sufficient grounds for resisting the application and oppose encroachment into Greenfield sites, it is not. There are two reasons for this: firstly the impact of Paragraph 49, and secondly, the Council recognises that the district’s housing requirements, as now identified in the Joint Core Strategy, is significantly larger than had previously been the case that development outside the SPBs identified in the Local Plan: Second Review, on greenfield sites will be essential to meet the new target. The identification of the essential greenfield sites would be undertaken in the Local Plan Part 2 Allocations. However, the lack of a 5 year housing land supply brings added urgency to the need to release greenfield sites and effectively, takes decisions of principle away from the plan led system and purely into the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as the NPPF sets out at Paragraph 14.
The Interim Housing Policy Statement
In recognising the reliance on the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development, the Council has adopted interim supplementary guidance (Interim Housing Policy Statement) referred to as the IHPS.
The IHPS establishes a list of criteria and considerations to be applied in determining applications for sites outside settlement policy boundaries relative to sustainability considerations in East Hampshire. A primary sustainable development principle in East Hampshire is the settlement hierarchy. 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. 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. As Oakhanger is not a settlement which is intended to have a housing allocation, no such consultation has taken place.
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. Oakhanger, which falls under the 'small rural village/hamlet' is not identified in the JCS as needing to accommodate a proportionate amount of housing.
Local housing needs
As this site falls outside the settlement policy boundary the site falls under Policy CP14 'Affordable housing for rural communities'. Policy CP14 states that development will only be permitted in such locations if it is affordable housing for local people. The application is for 7 affordable dwellings and 3 market dwellings. Whilst Policy CP14 does allow for up to 30% of market housing, this is for settlements with a settlement policy boundary, which Oakhanger does not have.
In order for Oakhanger to be viewed as an exceptional circumstance, the applicant would need to demonstrate that the affordable housing on the site has been maximised and the applicant has not done this and nor has sufficient justification been provided for the market element of the scheme to consist of larger homes. There is no housing need evidence submitted and the justification for the affordable housing mix is absent. A housing needs survey would need to be carried out to determine the local housing need.
2. Principle of development
Locational suitability
In terms of the location, Oakhanger does not have a settlement policy boundary and therefore JCS Policy CP19 would be the relevant policy to consider the proposal against, which seeks to control development outside SPBs. Officers also consider this site is non-compliant in terms of its position with regards to the IHPS as the site does not share a boundary with a SPB. Consideration of alternative sites
Objectors believe that alternative sites, with preference to more appropriate brownfield sites, should be pursued first. 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. Each case must be assessed on its merits and for the purposes of the NPPF and development plan, there is no sequential assessment requirement for housing sites when determining planning applications.
Notwithstanding other sites in the area may be preferential in one or other respects, it falls to the Council to determine this application on its individual merits, having regard to all material considerations.
In line with the NPPF, if a scheme is considered to represent sustainable development, it should be approved. There is no requirement for an applicant to demonstrate theirs is the most sustainable location for development. In this case, in the opinion of officers, as the proposed development does not abut a SPB and does not, therefore, fall within the criteria of the IHPS, there is no sound basis on which to approve the application.
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 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.”
In this case, one of the issues is whether the development would require any off-site works in respect of drainage or highway improvements and whether those works would be significant and accordingly might delay the implementation of the development. If so, this would be counter-productive to the goals of the IHPS, of speeding up housing delivery, particularly if similar improvements may not apply to other sites coming forward.
As this application is in outline form, the application is not within the preferred (detailed) format suggested to come forward by the IHPS. The application site is also considered to be at risk of flooding. The Environment Agency's Flood Map shows a narrow flood plain (Flood Zone 2/3) associated with the Oakhanger stream and the remainder of the site in Flood Zone 1. However, the Councils flood mapping indicates a large area of the site is susceptible to surface water flooding, possibly due to a high water table. Any development will increase surface water run off and the site is considered unsuitable for any form of SUDS system relying on soakage.
The drainage issue is considered a barrier to the development coming forward within the time period sought by the IHPS, which seeks to speed up housebuilding by restricting the period of implementation to 2 years; therefore, this is an additional conflict with the IHPS’ criteria.
4. Affordable housing
The affordable housing would amount to seventy percent of the total number of dwellings proposed and would comprise 7 x 2 bedroomed houses.
The applicant does not state what tenure of affordable housing is to be provided on the site. The provision of the affordable housing would need to be secured via a legal obligation. 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.
If this scheme is to be considered as a rural exception site, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the affordable housing on this site has been maximised. No valuation report has been submitted, nor has sufficient justification been provided for the market element of the scheme to consist of larger homes. There is no housing need evidence and the justification for the affordable housing mix is absent. Only recently has housing need information been considered in Selborne parish as three separate villages and therefore, the data held by EHDC is minimal. A housing needs survey would need to be carried out to determine the housing need.
Whilst affordable housing would normally be welcomed, in the absence of any evidence, the scheme is considered contrary to policy in this rural location.
5. Access and highway issues
This is an outline application with access as a detailed consideration. Oakhanger Road, is a ‘C’ class road which is subject to a 30mph speed limit in the vicinity of the site and is the main access through the rural village. HCC Highways has raised no objection, in principle, to the access arrangements, following the receipt of additional information. However, in the absence of a Road Safety Audit, County continue to object as it cannot be shown that the accesses are safe.
The proposal meets the required parking standards for these dwelling sizes.
6. Impact on neighbouring properties
This is an outline application and whilst site layout is a matter to be considered at this stage, the impact on neighbouring residents can be fully considered only at the reserved matters stage, when the heights of the buildings and positioning of windows would be shown. However, with an outline application, the applicant must be able to demonstrate the level of development sought can be successfully accommodated on the site and the proposed layout is key to this assessment.
A large number of third-party comments raise significant concerns
7. Impact on the surrounding area
Policies CP17 and 18 state that development in the countryside can only be permitted provided it:
• would not harm the overall character, quality, tranquility and appearance of the countryside; • would fit comfortably next to the built form of Oakhanger; • would not harm the intrinsic local character of the landscape, sense of place or local distinctiveness; • the type and volume of traffic generated would not result in danger or inconvenience on the public highway, or harm the rural character of local roads; • the development would not harm the overall character, quality and appearance of the countryside, which shall be protected for its own sake.
The Landscape Officer has been consulted on the application and has raised objection to the proposed development on the grounds of impact on the surrounding area: -
'The proposal is to build houses on an attractive wet meadow on the edge of a village, close to the South Downs National Park and Shortheath Common SSSI, SAC and LNR, which would impact on the character of the landscape and the appearance of the countryside.
The second access point would break through the boundary hedge which is a local landscape feature and the character of the public footpath through the meadow would change from rural to suburban. Drainage would be required to create a usable kickabout area on the meadow and this would change its character and biodiversity.'
The Crime Prevention Design Officer has commented that 'the site itself is lower than Oakhanger Road and the view from the road is restricted by hedge row that runs along the Oakhanger Road. The proposal creates areas of public space to the north (kick-about area) and east (informal open space and orchard planting) of the proposed development. There is very little natural surveillance of these areas, which increases the vulnerability of both the spaces themselves and those within the spaces, to crime and anti-social behaviour. To provide for the safety and security of those using the public open space, some natural surveillance should be provided. Measures should be put in place, perhaps wooden bollards, to prevent unauthorised vehicular access on to the open spaces. Access to the rear parking areas and public open spaces is via a newly-created service road. There is very little natural surveillance of this road, this increases the vulnerability of the dwellings and parked vehicles to crime. To reduce the opportunities for crime, greater natural surveillance of the area should be provided.' These crime prevention measures including the wooden bollards would alter the character of the area.
The boundary of the South Downs National Park runs along the rear of the dwellings and public house opposite the site. The National Park Authority has commented on the application and raised an objection.
8. Trees and ecology
There are no trees within the site that would have to be removed to make way for this development.
In terms of ecology, the County Ecologist has queried Natural England’s response concerning the impact on Oakhanger Stream, about which Natural England have raised no objection. The County Ecologist has taken issue with the response, claiming there will be an impact on Oakhanger Stream. In the absence of a Habitat Regulations Assessment being submitted with the application, the impact on designated sites nearby has been difficult to assess. The County Ecologist has requested a fully detailed management plan be submitted with any reserved matters application.
9. Drainage
The Environment Agency's Flood Map shows a narrow flood plain (Flood Zone 2/3) associated with the Oakhanger Stream and the remainder of the site in Flood Zone 1 (low risk of flooding). However, a large area of the site is susceptible to surface water flooding.
A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted, dated 19 March 2014, but was not supported by a geotechnical site investigation. The final paragraph on page 12 states 'there are no records of the site having been previously affected by surface water or groundwater flooding'. This is incorrect. A previous site investigation carried out in August 2011, found a high water table, at 450 - 600mm below ground level. Following the recent very wet winter, the water table on site has been observed by local residents as at or above ground level. These observations are supported by photographic evidence.
The development would increase surface water run-off and the FRA confirms that the site is not suitable for a SUDS system relying on soakage. The alternative option would be to discharge to the Oakhanger Stream, with run-off attenuated to the current greenfield rates. This would require a balancing pond and due to the high water table, any pond would need to be very shallow and require a large area of the site. This system would need to be carefully designed to ensure flood risk is not transferred elsewhere and the pond would require regular maintenance to ensure storage capacity is maintained.
On the basis of the current drainage/flooding information, it is not clear that the site is suitable for development and would not increase flood risk elsewhere.
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 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, so no specific measures to secure the renewable targets have been proposed; therefore a condition would need to be attached to secure such details.
11. Developer Contributions
The proposal would generate a requirement for public open space, transportation and community facilities in accordance with the requirements of the adopted ‘Developers Guide to Contributions’ and relevant JCS and Local Plan policies. In the absence of a legal obligation, the required contributions have not been secured.
Conclusion
The principle of new housing development in this location is considered unacceptable as the site is a greenfield site within open countryside within the village of Oakhanger, which has no settlement policy boundary. The site, therefore, does not conform to the criteria of the IHPS or policies contained with the Core Strategy and the Local Plan: Second Review. The site is also environmentally constrained by flooding and the development is likely to have a significant negative impact on the character of the area. The applicant has also failed to provide justification for the open market element of the housing scheme or justification of housing need. A Safety Audit of the accesses and a fully detailed Biodiversity Management Plan are also absent. The development is, therefore, considered contrary to the policies contained within the Core Strategy and the Local Plan and the criteria of the Interim Housing Policy Statement.
RECOMMENDATION
REFUSAL for the following reasons:
1 The level of development proposed would not be consistent with maintaining and enhancing the character of the village but instead would place undue pressure on the limited range of local services in this small local village. 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, Policies CP1, CP2 and (non housing target aspects of) CP10 of the East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy and the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014.
2 The proposal constitutes an unacceptable intrusion of development into the countryside to the detriment of the visual amenity and character of rural area beyond the built up area of Oakhanger, contrary to Policies CP1, CP2, CP19 and CP29 of the East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy.
3 From the information submitted it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the access arrangements would not have an adverse impact on the safety of other highway users, contrary to East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy policy CP31.
4 From the information submitted, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal would not cause harm to protected species or biodiversity, contrary to East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy Policy CP21.
5 The proposal would result in increased surface water run-off and it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated through detailed design details, supported by a geotechnical site investigation that this can be adequately dealt with without causing an adverse impact off-site. The proposal, is therefore, contrary to paragraphs 100 to 104 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CP25 of the East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy.
6 The application fails to justify the market element of the housing, the size of the market homes, or evidence of the housing need in the village. It is, therefore, contrary to East Hampshire District Council Local Plan Policy H14 and East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy Policies CP2 and CP19.
7 The proposal fails to provide affordable housing in accordance with policy CP13, CP18 and CP32 of the East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy and the Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014.
8 No provision has been made for public open space within the proposal contrary to Policy CP18 of the East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy and the 'Guide to Developers' Contributions and Other Planning Requirements'.
9 No provision has been made towards integrated transportation measures with the proposal, contrary to Policy CP31 and CP32 of the East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy and the Council's 'Guide to Developers' Contributions and Other Planning Requirements'.
10 No provision has been made towards Community Facilities, contrary to Policy CP32 of the East Hampshire 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.
In this instance the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit.
CASE OFFICER: Nicky Powis 01730 234226 ———————————————————————————————————————
SECTION 1 Item 04 Land South of Holly Cottage, Oakhanger Road, Oakhanger, Bordon
Site layout plan