Agenda Item 10

Report PC39/16 Report to Planning Committee Date 11 August 2016 By Director of Planning Local Authority City Council Application Number SDNP/16/02757/FUL Applicant Mr Armstrong Application Demolition of part of Vernon House, new road and 5 new detached houses comprising 4 no.3 bedroom and 1 no.5 bedroom dwelling. Address Vernon House, Road, Corhampton, SO32 3ND.

Recommendation: That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in Paragraph 10.1 of this report.

Executive Summary The application site is located in the village of Corhampton in the Meon Valley. It comprises an area the large rear garden land of a dwelling known as Vernon House and adjacent land to the south. It covers 0.27ha. Vernon House fronts onto Warnford Road (the A32), which runs through the village. It is in a residential area where there are dwellings to the east, west and south, whilst there is a haulage yard known as Houghtons Yard immediately to the north. An appeal has recently been allowed at Houghtons Yard for it to be redeveloped for 8 dwellings (Appendix 2). The application proposes 5 dwellings. All of them would be two storey detached properties and would range from 2 to 4 bedrooms. They would have a traditional character and appearance. They would be accessed via a new shared private drive alongside Vernon House. This would involve widening the existing driveway by demolishing part of Vernon House, which would result in this dwelling becoming a 2 bedroom property. Concerns from local residents and the Parish Council include impact upon surrounding amenities, drainage, and pedestrian access. Corhampton has a defined settlement policy boundary. The site falls within this boundary. Whilst the site is not wholly classed as previously developed land, as defined in the NPPF, current development plan policy supports the principle of its development. Corhampton has a draft allocation of 11 dwellings in the SDNPA Preferred Options Local Plan but a specific site has not been identified. The scheme has been proposed alongside a separate application on land immediately to the north. This separate application also proposes 5 dwellings. The two sites are intrinsically linked because their design is read as one overall scheme. The adjoining application is also being considered in Agenda Item 9. The application is recommended for refusal on highway safety grounds in regard to an inadequate access onto Warnford Road (A32), insufficient on site turning space and visitor parking. A third reason for refusal relates to the absence of a completed Legal Agreement to secure affordable housing and public open space requirements. The application is placed before committee due to the significance of the proposals in relation to the neighbouring sites, context of the surrounding area and potential impact.

101 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site is in the village of Corhampton, which is in the Meon Valley. The flows approximately north-south through the village, as does Warnford Road (A32) which is a main road between Fareham to the south and the A31 at Chawton to the north. Corhampton has a centre around two churches and a village store, with a post office, close to the roundabout junction of the A32 and Corhampton Lane (B3035). This area is designated as a conservation area, which the site is approximately 350m from its boundaries to the north. There is a residential area north of the centre on either side of Warnford Road, whilst the southern part of the village is on the eastern side of this road and separated from it by fields. The southern part extends parallel with the A32 which gives the village a linear pattern of development. The village also has a ‘loose knit’ settlement edge with residential gardens backing onto a mosaic of fields bordered by mature hedgerow boundaries. 1.2 There is a mix of dwellings in Corhampton in terms of their age and character, which includes more modern development of flats and terraced properties, but overall the village is predominantly made up of detached and semi-detached properties. There is also a wide range of sizes and garden sizes. There is a more recent development close to the site at Millside to the south. 1.3 The site is located in the northern part of the village and on the eastern side of Warnford Road. Vernon House is a two storey semi-detached property which fronts onto Warnford Road. It has a front driveway which runs past the side of the house up to a timber gate. Beyond the gate is an extensive rear garden which is predominantly laid to lawn. There are also single storey outbuildings and a vegetable garden. 1.4 The application site is a largely rectangular area of land behind Vernon House, Wayside and Hazelmead which front onto Warnford Road. It encompasses Vernon House, its driveway, part of its garden and a grassed area which has previously been used for horse grazing. It can only be accessed via the private driveway of Vernon House. The site is bordered by hedging and trees. The land rises up from Warnford Road and by the eastern site boundary the land is 3m higher than the road. 1.5 South of the site are semi-detached dwellings which front onto St Andrews Green. East of the site are dwellings which front onto Rectory Lane. West of the site are the three dwellings highlighted in paragraph 1.4 above, whilst to the north is the remainder of the large rear garden of Vernon House and Houghtons Yard beyond. There are very limited wider views of the site from the surrounding countryside. 1.6 An appeal has been allowed at Houghtons Yard for a development of 8 dwellings. Further north of the yard is a cul-de-sac of large properties on De Port Heights, which would be used for access by the appeal scheme. 2. Relevant Planning History 2.1 SDNP/15/04302/FUL: Demolition of part of Vernon House and construction of 5 new dwellings (2x no.3 bed detached and 3x no.5/6 bed detached house) with revised access. Currently undetermined. 2.2 SDNP/16/00967/FUL: The demolition of part of Vernon House, and construction of 17 houses comprising 13x no.3 bed and 4x no.4 bedroom houses, revised access and landscaping details. Application undetermined. The application site is the same land as the application being considered in this report and the site immediately north. 2.3 A separate planning application on land immediately north of the application site is also currently being considered (SDNP/16/02767/FUL). Please see Report PC38/16, Agenda Item 9, for further information. 2.4 SDNP/15/05227/FUL: Cessation of haulage yard and demolition of existing commercial buildings. Construction of 10 dwellings with parking, cycle and refuse collection provision with access off Warnford Road and De Port Heights. Refused May 2016.

102 2.5 SDNP/15/01181/FUL: Cessation of transport haulage yard and demolition of existing commercial buildings. Construction of eight dwellings with parking, cycle and refuse collection provision with access off Warnford Road and De Port Heights. Appeal allowed 18 May 2016.

3. Proposal 3.1 The application proposes 5 detached dwellings on the site, which comprises part of the rear garden of Vernon House and land immediately south. They would comprise: • 4x no.3 bed detached dwellings (plots C1 – C4). • 1x no.4 bedroom dwelling (plot C5). The proposed layout 3.2 The dwellings would be accessed via a new shared driveway which would consist of the existing driveway of Vernon House and widening it by the part demolition of Vernon House. The access would be 4.1m wide. Vernon House would be retained as a 2 bedroom dwelling and it would have new parking spaces at the end of a new rear garden boundary. The shared drive would have a length of pavement alongside its southern edge next to Vernon House which would continue along Warnford Road up to in front of a dwelling known as Wayside. 3.3 The 5 dwellings (plots C1 to C5) would be sited in a row and would face northwards onto the shared driveway. The driveway would extend from the site entrance to the private drive of plot C5, where there would be no turning head. The dwellings on plots C1 to C4 would be 2.4m apart and there would be a 2.8m distance between the dwellings on plots C4 and C5. The length of their rear gardens would range from 10.4m to 12.2m. Plots C5 would have the largest garden and it is also the biggest dwelling. All of the dwellings would have private drives. On plots C1 to C4 the dwellings would have attached garages whilst on C5 there would be a detached two bay car port. 3.4 The garage on the western side of the dwelling on plot C1 would be 1.4m from the rear garden boundary of neighbouring Wayside. At the opposite end of the site, the dwelling on plot C5 would be 9.3m from the rear garden boundary of the neighbouring property. 3.5 The proposals show an indicative landscaping scheme. Some of the existing boundary trees are proposed to be retained whilst others are proposed to be felled. The proposals would use a sewerage treatment plant on site as there is no mains drainage. Design of the dwellings 3.6 The dwellings would have a traditional appearance. All of the dwellings would be two storey. Their roofs would be gabled and the dwellings on plots C1 to C4 would have ridge heights of 9.3m and the ridge height of plot C5 would be 9m. Lower two storey gables are proposed on the front and rear elevations of plot C5. Architectural features include brick detailing above ground floor windows, porch canopies, brick courses above the ground floor on the front and rear elevations, and brick chimneys. Timber windows and doors, including garage doors, are proposed. A pitched roof dormer window is proposed above each garage on plots C1 to C4 to accommodate a bedroom. 3.7 Vernon House would be reduced to a no.2 bedroom property. The dwelling would remain two storey with hipped roofs which would maintain the pitch of the roof with the attached property called Wayside. The front door would be to the northern side of the dwelling onto a proposed pavement along the new access. It would have a smaller front garden because of the proposed access and it would have a smaller, but still good sized, rear garden. 3.8 The dwellings would be constructed to the updated Building Regulations standards particularly in regard to energy and water efficiency, equivalent to level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, and would meet national space standards.

4. Consultations 4.1 Environment Agency: No objection. 4.2 County Council Ecologist: Awaiting comments.

103 4.3 Winchester City Council (WCC) Arboriculture: No objection subject to conditions. 4.4 WCC Drainage Engineer: No objection. 4.5 WCC Environmental Health: No objection. 4.6 WCC Sustainability Officer: Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes applies. 4.7 WCC Housing Officer: Response has been prepared with regard to policies CP2 (Housing provision and mix) and CP3 (Affordable housing on market led sites) of the JCS and the SDNPA Position Statement on housing contributions for developments of 6 to 10 units. Officer note- these comments also relate to Agenda Item 9. • The two development for which planning applications have been made are intrinsically linked and should be considered as one development of 10 units. • Preference is for 40% of the dwellings be for affordable housing and 70% of these for rent. This should be related to the size and type of development, and indiscernibly from and well integrated with market dwellings. A mix of affordable housing should comprise 1x no.2 bed and 3x no.3 bedroom dwellings. • The Parish Council are keen to see on site provision of affordable housing to meet the needs of the parish and to retain a mixed community. If on site provision proves impossible, an equivalent contribution of £529,000 (based on all 10 dwellings) should be sought. 4.8 WCC Highways: Objection. Works will need the formal approval of Hampshire County Council as the Highways Authority. HCC have been consulted on the proposals and concur that the proposals are unacceptable because of highway safety concerns about the new junction and onsite parking provision and turning space, as outlined below: • Required visibility splays cross third party land • The junction radii is too small • Access is too narrow for a lorry and car to pass one another. • No formal turning head within the red line of the application to allow a service vehicle to turn within the site to leave in a forward gear. • Plot C5 has no means of turning within the site, which would result in a overlong reversing manoeuvre onto the A32. 4.9 SDNPA Landscape: Awaiting comments. 4.10 Corhampton and Parish Council: ‘Broadly’ supportive. • Addresses several concerns over the submission for 17 dwellings on this and the neighbouring site. • Scheme reflects the design granted on appeal for the neighbouring site at Houghtons Yard, which delivers a coherent plan for the three contiguous sites. Following issues to be resolved: • Opposed to a ‘closed system’ of foul drainage which has been used elsewhere in the village. Given the size of the development, the required frequency of emptying would result in an unacceptable level of tanker traffic which would be a nuisance and there could be potential problems should the size of the installation prove insufficient for demand. Klargester type of drainage system would be preferable. • Pedestrian access. Concern that there is no safe crossing route from the site to the key village amenities. The number of pedestrian movements would increase once the development is built. Strongly urge investigations with the Highway Authority on whether a continuous footway can be achieved on the east side of the A32. 4.11 SDNPA Design Officer: Objection. • The scheme is co-dependant on its context and therefore it is not possible to consider it without referring the adjoining application proposals. Both applications need to be

104 reviewed together. Multiple applications have made the application process convoluted and incoherent in design terms. • Once the appeal scheme at Houghton’s Yard is implemented it will set a precedent for the application site. • Do not agree with Inspector’s findings that the scheme is acceptable in design and layout terms for the following reasons: 1) Appeal scheme will form an inward-looking cul-de-sac development which would diminish the opportunity for permeability through the site. 2) Note previous concerns of De Port Heights residents about increased traffic however a boundary between the application site and the Houghton’s Yard scheme is ill-considered. Pedestrian access should be allowed to continue through the sites. 3) There is a significant issue for pedestrian movement. Whilst internal road network is a shared surface, once pedestrians walk out of the development the environment dramatically changes to one dominated by fast moving vehicles. The lack of a linked pedestrian footpath along the eastern side of the A32 means pedestrians would have to cross the road. A pedestrian link is critical. 4) Development places little importance on landscape. No indication the proposals have been landscape led and lack of detailed landscaping scheme. 5) A landscape strategy is integral to the street composition and character of the site and should be detailed at this stage to assess how the landscape elements within the scheme will function as quality useable green space and how the public green space will sit alongside the visitor parking. 6) Accurate graphic presentation of the scheme showing accurate levels should be provided to gauge the expected impact of massing and assess views in and out of the site. 7) Drainage systems should inform the design. 8) It was considered to be an appropriate site to introduce a new and original typology of housing for Corhampton, distinctive yet routed in the past use of local materials with an idea to create a place, giving attention to the quality of the public realm, the constraints of the 1m ransom strip and move away from the layout traits of a mediocre housing estate. 9) The layout has not addressed the points of refusal on adjacent site to an adequate degree in regard to the form of buildings, density, building heights and massing. 10) A further reduction in the number of dwellings and a revised layout would allow for a re-think of the layout and housing design. 11) Development should include a mix of dwelling types and sizes and avoid single blocks of more than 5/6 units. Any future high density homes should be in the form of terraced homes with similar footprints to the old terraced cottages. 12) Inspector considered that 1m gap between houses was acceptable. This is not appropriate in terms of movement around the house (function) nor visually appropriate in design terms. It is highly likely residents would want close boarded fence along these boundaries which would create 1m wide defined boundaries. External chimneys also encroach into thes gap, further reducing ease of movement. 13) Do not consider the architectural style of the appeal scheme will make a positive contribution to Corhampton or the National park. 14) Layout based on appeal scheme. 15) Opportunity missed to create an exemplar scheme. 16) Scheme should identify a level of ‘contribution’ to the area rather than an acceptable level of harm. The design needs to interpret a sense of local identity and not be made up of generic house styles without distinction. 4.12 SDNPA Historic Buildings Advisor: No objection. • Development would have no appreciable impact on the setting of the conservation area or Saxon Church. 105 • No listed buildings close by or any neighbouring undesignated heritage assets. • No above ground heritage assets are applicable. 4.13 Southern Water: Comments. Consult the Environment and Council’s Building Control Officers or technical staff on adequacy of drainage. The site is within a source protection zone in regard to ground water. 4.14 SDNPA Ranger Service (Dark Night Skies): Comments. • In general the design of the houses in good in that they do limit the amount of upper floor glass. • Whilst the Design and Access Statement outlines external lighting will be kept to a minimum, not detailed information has been provided. • Given that the houses are set away from the road and therefore any street lighting some external lighting on site would likely be desirable. • Recommend low level bollard lighting with proximity sensors. • Any security lighting over 1500 lumens should be conditioned. • Introduction of houses will inevitably increase the amount of light pollution, it could be argued a reduction in the number of houses be considered to reduce this impact. Some additional planting around the properties will help to shield this. • No future roof lights should be installed to reduce light spill. 5. Representations 5.1 5 letters of objection have been received. Representations also comment on the adjoining application (Agenda Item 9) which raise the following issues: Objections • Overlooking from upper floor windows from plots V4 and V5 on dwellings to the east. • Scale and mass of dwellings and proximity to eastern boundary unneighbourly. • Need for appropriate new boundary planting, existing trees are deciduous which would compound overlooking issue and existing hedge needs supplementary planting. • Request obscure glazing be used in upper floor rear windows. • Adequate fencing required in rear gardens required to contain pets. • Foul drainage scheme should not be too close to new or existing properties to respect private residential amenities. • Previous scheme for more housing is in discriminant and untypical of a National Park. • Lack of footpaths and woefully inadequate where they do exist. • Inadequate parking around and between the shop and the site. • Impact on private residential amenities from plots C2 and C3 and no mitigation proposed. • Appropriate foul drainage scheme required which needs to be approved by the Environment Agency. This is a fundamental part of the application and cannot be left to condition. • If the EA do not approve a treatment plant and a closed tank system is required this will have a fundamental impact from regular emptying and could require an alternative layout, including a reduction to the number of houses. There have been problems with foul water systems elsewhere in the village. • Request SDNPA to ensure that the road serving Houghtons Yard is physically separated from the new road serving the site. Planning conduitions should be imposed requiring that access will only be taken to this site via that proposed and not linked with Houghtons Yard. • Require more permanent physical separation between the site and the scheme on Houghtons Yard to avoid the developments being linked. • Potential for the sites to be linked with Houghtons Yard which would allow traffic to use De Port Heights, which was not designed for such additional traffic.

106 • Inadequate garaging and parking on the Houghtons Yard scheme which will lead to overspill into De Port Heights. This will also restrict access for large vehicles such as refuse lorries, creating unnecessary hazards. • Level of traffic from the Houghtons Yard would be intolerable to De Port Heights and additional traffic for this development would be totally unacceptable. • Permanent physical barrier to prevent the sites being connected with Houghtons Yard should be put in place.

6. Planning Policy Context 6.1 Applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The relevant statutory development plan comprises the saved policies of the Winchester District Local Plan Review (2006) and the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 Joint Core Strategy 2013. The relevant policies are set out in section 7 below. National Park Purposes 6.2 The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are: • To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas; • To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas. If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social wellbeing of the local community in pursuit of these purposes. National Planning Policy Framework and Circular 2010 6.3 Government policy relating to National Parks is set out in English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 and The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was issued and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The Circular and NPPF confirm that National Parks have the highest status of protection and the NPPF states at paragraph 115 that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the national parks and that the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations and should also be given great weight in National Parks. 6.4 Paragraph 116 of the NPPF states that planning permission for major developments within National Parks should be refused except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Applications for major development should include an assessment of: • The need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations and the impact of permitting or refusing it, upon the local economy; • The cost of, and scope for, development outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and • Any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities and the extent to which that could be moderated. 6.5 It should be noted that there are two strands to the criteria outlined in paragraph 116 of the NPPF, which relate to ‘exceptional circumstances’ and the ‘public interest.’ Both have to be satisfied if major development is to be considered acceptable within the National Park 6.6 The South Downs National Park Partnership Management Plan was adopted on 3 December 2013. It outlines a vision and long term outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. It is a material consideration in planning applications and it has some weight pending the adoption of the South Downs National Park Local Plan. The following policies are relevant: • Policy 1 aims to conserve and enhance the natural beauty and special qualities of the landscape and its setting, in ways that allow it to continue to evolve and become more resilient to the impacts of climate change and other pressures; • Policy 3 aims to Protect and enhance tranquillity and dark night skies; 107 • Policy 9 aims to protect the significance of the historic environment from harm, new discoveries are sought and opportunities to reveal its significance are sought; • Policy 48 aims to ensure housing and other development in the National Park is closely matched to the social and economic needs of local people; • Policy 50 aims to closely match housing and other development to the social and economic needs of local people and that it should be of high design and energy efficiency standards. 6.7 The development plan policies listed below have been assessed for their compliance with the NPPF and are considered to be complaint with it.

7. Planning Policy 7.1 The following saved policies of the Winchester District Local Plan 2006 are relevant: • DP.1 Design General Design Criteria • DP.3 General Design Criteria • DP.4 Landscape and the Built Environment • HE.8: Development Affecting the Setting of a Conservation Area • T.2 Development Access • T.4 Parking Standards 7.2 The following policies of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 Plan Joint Core Strategy (JCS) 2013 are relevant: • MTRA1 • MTRA3 • CP7 Open Space, Sport and Recreation • CP9 Retention of Employment Land and Premises • CP10 Transport • CP11 Sustainable and Zero Carbon Built Development • CP14 The Effective Use of Land • CP13 High Quality Design • CP16 Biodiversity • CP19 South Downs National Park • CP20 Heritage and Landscape Character The South Downs Local Plan: Preferred Options 7.3 The South Downs Local Plan: Preferred Options was approved for consultation by the National Park Authority on 16 July 2015 to go out for public consultation under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) () Regulations 2012. The consultation period ran from 2 September to 28 October 2015 and the responses received are being considered by the Authority. The next stage in the plan preparation will be the publication and then submission of the Local Plan for independent examination. Until this time, the preferred Options Local Plan is a material consideration in the assessment of this planning application in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, which confirms that weight can be given to policies in emerging plans following publication. Based on the early stage of preparation, the policies within the Preferred Options Local Plan are currently afforded limited weight. 7.4 The relevant planning policies of the draft SDNP Local Plan are SD1, SD2, SD5, SD6, SD9, SD11, SD12, SD14, SD18, SD22, SD23, SD24, SD31, SD35, SD37, SD39, SD44. 7.5 The Corhampton and Meonstoke Village Design Statement 2002 is also a relevant consideration. It was adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance by WCC in July 2002. The SDNPA has also adopted it by virtue of its status prior to the SDNPA becoming an Authority.

108 Legislation for Heritage Assets 7.6 Section 72 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990 relates to conservation areas. It requires “special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.”

8. Planning Assessment Overview of the development proposals at this site and adjoining sites 8.1 This application site became included in a wider comprehensive scheme between Houghtons Yard and land at Vernon House, when applications on these two sites were called in by the SDNPA for determination from its agent authority in Autumn 2015. They were called in because of the potential cumulative impact that these two separate neighbouring sites may have upon Corhampton. 8.2 There is an extant planning application for 17 dwellings (SDNP/16/00967/FUL) on this site which includes the adjoining land to the rear of Vernon House. This application remains undetermined. 8.3 At the SDNPA planning committee meeting on 12 May 2016 a scheme for 10 dwellings was refused planning permission at Houghtons Yard. This application followed a previous application for development on the same site which was appealed for non-determination. On 18 May 2016 the appeal was allowed at Houghtons Yard which comprised 8 dwellings (Appendix 2). Planning permission therefore exists for the ‘cessation of transport haulage yard and demolition of existing commercial buildings. Construction of eight dwellings with parking, cycle and refuse collection provision with access off Warnford Road and De Port Heights.’ 8.4 Both of these decisions have influenced the latest proposals considered in this report and the report on the adjoining scheme, Agenda Item 9. 8.5 This application and the adjacent application have been received as separate applications, however, they are inextricably linked in design terms. The assessment below is specific to this application but an assessment of how the proposals relate to the adjoining scheme (Agenda Item 9) and the cumulative impact upon the character of the village has also been undertaken. Principle of development 8.6 There is a stable on the edge of the site and it has been used for grazing. It isn’t considered to be wholly previously developed land (PDL) as defined in the NPPF. The principle of developing the site is acceptable because it is located within the settlement policy boundary (SPB) of Corhampton. Policies H.3 of the 2006 Local Plan and MTRA3 in the JCS support new residential development in SPBs in principle, subject to other considerations such as design. 8.7 Furthermore, policy MTRA1 of the JCS 2013 seeks to achieve the vision of the market towns and rural area of the district which is to: “support development that serves local needs in the most accessible and sustainable locations, promoted the vitality and viability of all communities, and maintains their rural character and individual settlement identity.” This includes the provision of new homes. 8.8 Corhampton has been allocated a provisional 11 new dwellings in the SDNPA Preferred Options Local Plan, but a specific site is not yet identified. In the SDNPA’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), only 2 sites were promoted at the southern end of the village and both were rejected. The allowed appeal at Houghtons Yard for 8 dwellings makes a significant contribution to this allocation. The dwellings currently being proposed would contribute to the remainder of the allocation and with the adjoining application for a further 5 dwellings (Agenda Item 9) this figure of 11 would be exceeded. Importantly, the draft allocation for the village does not preclude further development being proposed as ‘windfall sites.’ 8.9 Paragraph 116 of the NPPF states that planning permission should be refused for major developments within designated areas (including national parks) except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. The NPPF 109 doesn’t provide a definition of what constitutes ‘major development.’ The legal advice sought by the SDNPA provides guidance on the definition of major development within national parks. The opinion (as expanded on in subsequent responses) advises that major development is any development which, by reason of its scale, character or nature, has the potential to have a serious adverse impact on the natural beauty or recreational opportunities provided by a national park. The assessment of whether a proposal is major is therefore a matter of judgement based on all the circumstances and context of the site. 8.10 In this instance, the application proposes 5 dwellings; the site is within the boundaries of a sufficiently large village to accommodate the development; in a residential area where it is surrounded by dwellings; is set away from the historic core and conservation area; and there are limited views of the site. Taking into account this context and the neighbouring application of a further 5 dwellings the scale and character of the proposals are not considered to be major development where it would be subject to the tests in paragraph 116 of the NPPF. 8.11 Considerations on the merits of the design of the proposals are outlined below. In the first instance a summary of the Inspector’s findings of the appeal at Houghton’s Yard is provided as these have informed the proposals. The appeal Inspector’s findings in the allowed appeal at Houghtons Yard 8.12 The Inspector considered that the ransom strip along southern site boundary of Houghtons Yard significantly reduces the opportunity to create a comprehensive scheme with neighbouring sites. 8.13 The development would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area for the following reasons: • More tightly knit development than De Port Heights which would achieve more effective use of land, but despite this the open plan frontages and minimum gap of 24m between facing dwellings would create a spacious appearance. • The informal form of the block paved access with no kerbs or footpaths would be a ‘pleasing contrast’ to the more traditional and heavily engineered street scene of De Port Heights. • Staggered building line of properties would reduce the perception of undue regimentation. • Size of front gardens would be sufficient to avoid parking being visually dominant and also avoid token landscaping that would be unusable. • Subject to good quality materials for hard surfaces or permeable areas the 6 dwellings within the site would have a visually cohesive and pleasing street scene. • 2m gaps between the houses and 1m gaps to the flanks of the site are acceptable and wouldn’t give a perception that the site is cramped or overdeveloped. • Design of the dwellings is of a good standard with well-articulated front elevations. • The handing of the 6 dwellings either side of the access would ‘form a balance and symmetry of pleasing appearance and although each side would have the same house types this reinforces the visual cohesion of the scheme. • The development would have a separate identity but it would sit comfortably within the mixed character of Corhampton. • No significant impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties. 8.14 The Inspector found that an off-site affordable housing contribution of £30,000 was acceptable. The scale and layout of the proposals 8.15 Policies DP.3 of the 2006 Local Plan and CP14 of the JCS seek to make efficient and effective use of land. This is however subject to development making a positive contribution to the local context, including creating a sense of place and distinctive character and its relationship with neighbouring properties.

110 8.16 The assessment below has taken into consideration the views of the Inspector, the SDNPA Design Officer and third party responses. The number of dwellings on site would be an acceptable density and in the layout of a row of dwellings it would not give the appearance of being an overly cramped form of development. 8.17 In regard to the surrounding character, there are parts of Corhampton where dwellings are generously spaced out, such as the large dwellings on De Port Heights, and in the vicinity of the site there is a mixture of more closely spaced detached, semi-detached and terrace houses on both sides of Warnford Road. 8.18 The allowed scheme at Houghtons Yard will also change the character of the area once built. The proposals would be of a similar density to the scheme at Houghtons Yard and, combined with the application immediately north (agenda item 9), the character of this part of Corhampton would change further from this cumulative development. The proposals are not as densely developed as properties on Millside to the south west. Cumulatively, the proposals and Houghtons Yard would add a significant number of dwellings to the village and change this part of Corhampton, however the layout, scale and use of high quality materials and landscaping could add to the character of the village. 8.19 Development ‘in depth’ from Warnford Road is part of the local character. Both De Port Heights and The Butts to the north and Millside further south are developments which are primarily set back from the road and directly accessed from it. There is a further smaller scheme approximately opposite the site which is also set back behind properties as well. The allowed appeal at Houghtons Yard would also add to this. 8.20 It is likely that the scale and layout would still give rise to some views into the scheme from Warnford Road particularly through the shared access. The dwellings would be on a higher ground level to dwellings which front onto Warnford Road. This may not however be an issue because the dwellings would be two storey and would be set behind existing two storey properties on Warnford Road. The site is in a more built up character of the village compared to its ‘loose knit’ outskirts and in this respect views of the new dwellings would not appear out of place in this context. Furthermore, they may be seen in the context of the allowed scheme at Houghtons Yard and the houses on De Port Heights which are also visible from the road. Layout and highways considerations 8.21 The layout of the scheme shows that the site has been designed to be linked with the adjoining scheme. Importantly, the proposed layout in isolation is not acceptable because the access as proposed within the red line area would not provide any turning space for either cars or larger vehicles, particularly refuse lorries. Furthermore, as noted by the WCC Highways Engineer cars within the driveway of plot C5 would not be able to turn within the private driveway to leave in a forward gear. The turning head as proposed in the adjoining site would need to be used. Therefore, the proposals rely on planning permission being granted on the adjoining site for suitable access arrangements. It would also rely on the visitor parking in the adjoining proposals as well. 8.22 Additionally, the WCC Highways Engineer has objected to the proposed access onto Warnford Road due to inadequate visibility splays, across third party land, the junction radii is too small and the access width is too narrow for a lorry and car to pass one another. The proposals are therefore unacceptable for these reasons and the application is recommended for refusal. 8.23 Notwithstanding the objection to the access arrangements, policy CP2 of the JCS outlines that new residential development should provide a range of dwellings types, tenures and sizes. In isolation, this current application proposes an acceptable mix based on the character of the area and in the context of the adjoining scheme. 8.24 Regarding to the works to Vernon House, the proposals would remove a later extension to it and reinstate to a degree the original scale and form of the dwelling. The frontage gable which matches Wayside would be retained which continues the symmetry between the two dwellings. This part of the scheme would be acceptable in these regards and the altered

111 dwelling would not detract from the character and appearance of the area provided suitable materials are used. Character and appearance of the proposed dwellings 8.25 Notwithstanding the access issues raised in regard to the layout, the proposals continue the character and appearance of the allowed scheme at Houghtons Yard. They have a consistent architectural style which would give the scheme a cohesive character and whilst dwellings have been handed they do include architectural features which add to the character of the proposed street scene. They do reflect architectural features in the village and, in conjunction with a good palette of materials, the dwellings would not appear out of character. Indeed, there has been some support in the village for their design. They are also not excessive in their height, scale and massing. 8.26 Their character and appearance also addresses aspects from the Corhampton and Meonstoke Village Design Statement. Some of these aspects within this document are generic but nevertheless the table below includes extracts from it to show how the scheme responds to the local vernacular. New buildings should harmonise with and Varying roof-scapes from steep pitched not dominate their surroundings but within roofs, hipped and half hipped roofs are these limits good modern design should be common. encouraged.

New buildings should be consistent with Variety of house and plot sizes encouraged. the existing roof scape and should not break the skyline.

Establish a well-connected internal street Porches and canopies should be simple environment with new public rights of way. structures, preferably not enclosed, in The existing footpath should be retained keeping with the style and construction of although may need to be slightly re-aligned. the building Contain semi-formal green spaces which Windows should not dominate the façade help to bridge the gap between residential in size and should be well set in from the development and the landscape beyond. edges of the building. Entrance porches are small, some are only Windows should be small paned with both canopies. the overall window and individual panes taller than they are wide.

Roofs should be pitched. Typically 2 storeys high although some have accommodation in the roof. Chimneys are simple and decorated by only Clay tiles or slate are preferred for roofs. a few string courses. Simple appearance, modest in scale and Buildings vary in form, roof line, materials without excessive decoration. They are a and fenestration. Their different styles mixture of cottage, farmhouse and formal have, generally, been combined satisfactorily styles. because of a consistency of scale, height and massing, lack of decoration and subdued colouration. Weathering has also had a unified effect.

Dormer windows should be small, Mineral resource information will be unobtrusive and designed to be in harmony required prior to development. with the building. Should not cause visual intrusion when on frontages within the street scene.

112 Relationship with the adjoining proposals 8.27 The application proposals cannot be considered in isolation from the adjoining scheme. It is important to assess how the two proposals relate to one another and the surrounding area. They share the same access and their design and layout is influenced by the central shared driveway. Indeed, these proposals would rely on the turning head in the adjoining site for vehicles to be able to turn around on site. The proposals would also rely on the proposed visitor parking in the adjoining development. 8.28 The dwellings on plots C1 to C3 would face two storey dwellings on the opposite side of the shared drive, which similarly would front onto the drive as well. They would be 10.8m apart between their frontages at the closest point and they would be on a similar ground level. This would be an acceptable distance and would not give a significant impression that the overall scheme would be unduly cramped. 8.29 Plots C4 and C5 would be at right angles to two detached dwellings to the north in the adjoining scheme (plots V4 and V5). These two dwellings would predominantly face the flank wall of the dwelling on plot V5. The dwelling on plot C5 may cause some overlooking of the rear garden of plot V5 from the upper floor windows (serving bedrooms), however, this is unlikely to be significantly harmful. 8.30 Neither scheme would dominate or detract from each another because the dwellings are of a similar size and appearance and the design of the overall layout and a coherent development could be achieved. In regard to the wider character of the area, the overall design broadly accords with aspects of the Corhampton and Meonstoke Village Design Statement. This was published in 2002 and doesn’t reflect more modern development in the village since then, but it includes considerations which these proposals accord with. 8.31 Together with the adjacent scheme, there would be a majority of no.3 bedroom dwellings (6 out of 10). Policy CP2 of the JCS outlines that a majority of homes should be 2 and 3 bedroom houses unless local circumstances indicative otherwise. Given the predominantly detached and semi-detached character of the surrounding area and considerations on the form of development and density the scheme accords with this policy. Impact on neighbouring amenities of existing and approved dwellings 8.32 Plots C1 to C4 would back onto the rear gardens of properties on St Andrews Close. The upper floor rear windows would be to bedrooms and these dwellings would be on higher ground to these adjacent existing properties. There is no significant planting along the southern boundary at the end of the plots C1 to C3 however given there is scope for new planting and the proposed length of gardens it is considered that there would not be significantly harmful overlooking and loss of privacy. Plots C4 and C5 would also have a good sized gardens and there are mature trees along the southern site boundary which would screen views into the neighbouring rear gardens of properties on St Andrews Close. 8.33 Concern has been raised about overlooking towards properties to the east. The dormer windows above the garages face into the site. The dwelling on plot C5 would not cause harmful overlooking of the rear gardens east of the site because it would be sited 9.3m from the boundary and that there are no upper floor windows facing that way. Impact on the setting of the conservation area 8.34 The impact on the setting of the conservation area has also been considered in respect of section 72 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990. The design of the development and its proximity to the conservation area and views into and out of it would be preserved by virtue of the location, scale and design of the development. This view is supported by the SDNPA’s Historic Buildings Advisor. Dark night skies 8.35 The dwellings would be within the village envelope. No roof lights are proposed and an acceptable size and amount of glazing is proposed in the design of the dwellings. A suitable external lighting plan for within the public realm could be conditioned. This would ensure that the shared driveway is not overly illuminated in terms of the amount and specification of lighting.

113 Landscape and trees 8.36 The WCC arboricultural officer does not object to the proposals to retain and remove certain trees, subject to conditions. Given the site is within the village boundaries the site would be seen in the context of the village in wider views. Their two storey nature would ensure they would not be unduly prominent in views given the similar heights of surrounding dwellings. 8.37 An indicative landscaping scheme has been proposed. However, the layout shows that landscaping could be introduced to demarcate front gardens and the driveway and contribute to the public realm. Notwithstanding the reasons for refusal, a condition requiring a more detailed hard and soft landscaping scheme could be appropriate. Ecology 8.38 Hampshire County Council Ecologist has not yet responded on the application and any update will be provided. Drainage 8.39 There is no surrounding mains foul drainage. The proposals involve the use of a private sewerage treatment plant. The drainage engineer has not raised an objection to the proposals. The Klargester scheme proposed would avoid the need to regular emptying by lorries which is a concern raised in the representations. Affordable housing and public open space contributions 8.40 The scheme does not propose any affordable housing. Policy CP3 of the JCS requires 40% of the gross number of new dwellings to be for affordable housing unless it would render the proposal economically unviable. 8.41 The latest National Planning Practice Guidance outlines that National Park Authorities should only seek affordable housing contributions from developments of between 6 to 10 dwellings as financial contributions and not on site. 8.42 It is considered that the SDNPA should be seeking a contribution in this instance because the two separate applications should be viewed as one development. Whilst some justification has been provided on this approach, which relates to different applicants and ownerships, the layouts in particular are intrinsically linked. 8.43 A viability assessment has been submitted which is being independently assessed. Further advice will be provided in the Update Sheet. Should anything less than the appropriate on- site provision be considered acceptable, including any off site payment in lieu, members will be advised and the S106 Agreement will secure the final approach. 8.44 A contribution towards public open space is also likely to be applicable. This is also being considered in the overall viability of the scheme further advice will be provided in the Update Sheet.

9. Conclusion 9.1 The proposed development of the site would be acceptable in principle of the basis of planning policy. The assessment above has considered the design of the proposals and the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, the setting of the conservation area, drainage, and the amenities of existing and unbuilt properties. The county council ecologist has not yet responded. Members will be updated on this issue. The proposed design of the access and the ability of vehicles being able to turn on site are however significant issues upon which the Highway Authority have objected. 9.2 No legal agreement to secure affordable housing and public open space requirements has been submitted. 9.3 The application is recommended for refusal and the reasons are outlined in paragraph 10.1 below. 10. Reason for Recommendation and Conditions 10.1 The application is recommended for refusal for the following reasons:

114 1. The proposed design of the access onto Warnford Road is unacceptable because inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the public highway. Furthermore, the junction radii is too small and the width of the access is too narrow for a lorry and a car to pass one another. Therefore, the design of the proposed access would cause danger and inconvenience to the users of the adjoining public highway, which is contrary to saved policy T.2 of the Winchester District Local Plan Review 2006, policy CP13 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 Joint Core Strategy 2013 and The NPPF 2012. 2. The proposed layout does not provide sufficient on site visitor parking and turning space for vehicles to be satisfactorily accommodated within the development. A lack of visitor parking would likely result in ad hoc parking on site which would restrict the use of the shared access. It would also encourage the parking of vehicles off site on the public highway, which would interrupt the free flow of traffic to the detriment of highway safety. The proposals are therefore contrary to policies T.2 and T.4 of the Winchester District Local Plan Review 2006, policy CP13 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 Joint Core Strategy 2013 and the NPPF 2012. 3. The proposed layout does not provide sufficient turning space for vehicles on site to enable them to leave in a forward gear. This would likely result in vehicles, particularly refuse vehicles, having to reverse onto the public highway, which would interrupt the free flow of traffic to the detriment of highway safety. The proposals are therefore contrary to policies T.2 and T.4 of the Winchester District Local Plan Review 2006, policy CP13 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 Joint Core Strategy 2013 and the NPPF 2012. 4. The proposals fail to make adequate and proper provision via a S.106 Legal Agreement for affordable housing and to mitigate against its direct impacts in respect of measures to satisfy public open space requirements. The proposals are therefore contrary to policies CP3, CP7 and CP21 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 Joint Core Strategy 2013, the NPPF, the statutory duty of a National Park and the English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010. 11. Crime and Disorder Implication 11.1 It is considered that the proposal does not raise any crime and disorder implications.

12. Human Rights Implications 12.1 This planning application has been considered in light of statute and case law and any interference with an individual’s human rights is considered to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised.

13. Equality Act 2010 13.1 Due regard has been taken of the South Downs National Park Authority’s equality duty as contained within the Equality Act 2010.

14. Proactive Working 14.1 In reaching this decision the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive way, in line with the NPPF. This has included the provision of pre- application advice from a SDNPA Development Management Officer and meetings to discuss the proposals.

Tim Slaney Director of Planning South Downs National Park Authority

115 Contact Officer: Richard Ferguson Tel: 01730 819268 email: [email protected] Appendices 1. Site Location Map 2. Allowed appeal (SDNP/15/01181/FUL & APP/Y9507/W/15/3139432) SDNPA Legal Services, Development Manager. Consultees Background All planning application plans, supporting documents, consultation and third Documents party responses http://planningpublicaccess.southdowns.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=O83DHRTUI5R 00 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6 077/2116950.pdf South Downs National Park Partnership Management Plan 2013 https://www.southdowns.gov.uk/national-park-authority/our-work/key- documents/partnership-management-plan/ South Downs Integrated Landscape Character Assessment 2005 and 2011 https://www.southdowns.gov.uk/planning/planning-advice/landscape/ Corhampton and Meonstoke Village Design Statement http://www.winchester.gov.uk/planning-policy/village-design- statements/corhampton-meonstoke-village-design-statement/

116

Agenda Item 10 Report PC39/16 Appendix 1 Site Location Map

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Downs National Park Authority, Licence No. 100050083 (2012) (Not to scale).

117

118 Agenda Item 10 Report PC39/16 Appendix 2

119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128