Eastleigh House Upper Market Street Eastleigh SO50 9YN

25 June 2015

NOTICE OF MEETING

EASTLEIGH LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE will meet on Tuesday, 30 June 2015 beginning at 7:00 pm at Main Hall, Eastleigh College, Chestnut Avenue

TO: Councillor Paul Bicknell (Chairman) Councillor Steve Sollitt (Vice-Chairman) Councillor Sarah Bain Councillor Simon Bancroft Councillor Wayne Irish Councillor Darshan Mann Councillor Mrs Maureen A Sollitt Councillor Chris Thomas Councillor Keith Trenchard

Staff Contacts: Amy Thorne, Democratic Services Officer Tel: 023 8068 8361 Email: [email protected]

Guy Riddoch, Area Co-ordinator Tel: 023 8068 3369; Email: [email protected]

RICHARD WARD Head of Legal and Democratic Services

Copies of this and all other agendas can be accessed via the Council's website - http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/meetings as well as in other formats, including Braille, audio, large print and other languages, upon request.

Members of the public are invited to speak on general items at the start of the meeting, and on individual agenda items at the time the item is discussed. To register please contact the Democratic Services Officer above. Please be aware that Eastleigh Borough Council permits filming, sound recording and photography at meetings open to the public. AGENDA

1. Chairman's Report

2. Public Participation (Pages 1 - 2)

3. Apologies

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

5. Presentation on Planning Guidelines

6. Planning Application - Land south of Chestnut Avenue north Stoneham Park, Chestnut Avenue, Stoneham Lane, Eastleigh (Pages 3 - 78) Ref. O/15/76023 - Outline application with all matters reserved (except for access) for the demolition of existing buildings/structures and the development of: 1) on land south of Chestnut Avenue (North Stoneham Park) - 1100 dwellings (use class C3); - residential care home (use class C2); - creation of a new local centre - including a new primary school (2FE), children's pre-school nursery, community building, retail, office and other buildings and car parking (use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1a, D1, D2); - public open space, children's play equipment, associated hard and soft landscaping and works; - foul and surface water drainage measures including pumping stations; access from Chestnut Avenue and Stoneham Lane (with new accesses/works to Chestnut Avenue (existing), Chestnut Avenue/Nightingale Avenue, Chestnut Avenue/Stoneham Lane, Stoneham Lane/Stoneham Way Junctions and new accesses onto Stoneham Lane); new footway/cycleway links; 2) extension to Lakeside Country Park on land east of Stoneham Lane, including new pedestrian links, landscaping and associated works; 3) construction of a new cycleway/footway along Stoneham Lane (from north/east of St Nicolas Church, southwards to the administrative boundary with Southampton City); 4) use of land south of Junction 5 of the M27 motorway for playing pitches and construction of associated facilities (including changing pavilion/hub building, spectator stands, enclosures, all-weather playing surfaces; floodlighting); with new accesses onto Stoneham Lane; parking; new footway/cycleway; landscaping and associated works; and 5) associated engineering operations; on and off-site supporting infrastructure necessary to facilitate development of the site. This application is subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment and is a departure from the development plan, and affects the setting of a listed building, and affects Public Rights of Way.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING Tuesday, 22 September 2015 at 7:00 pm at Eastleigh House, Upper Market Street, Eastleigh, SO50 9YN Agenda Item 2

Guidelines for Public Participation at meetings

- This is a meeting of Eastleigh Borough Council that is open to the public – although it is not a ‘public meeting’. There are dedicated public participation slots before Councillors debate & vote on each item.

- If you wish to register to speak in public participation, please ensure you do so with one of the Democratic or Area Co-ordinator officers here tonight, ideally before the meeting starts.

- There is a general ‘open’ public participation session at the start of the meeting and then, on each agenda item, 5 minutes in total for objectors and 5 minutes in total for supporters. The Chair may use their discretion to extend the time available to the public before Member debate if there is significant public interest in an item.

1 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6

30/06/2015

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR DECISION

EASTLEIGH Tuesday 30 June 2015 Case Officer Dawn Errington

SITE: Land south of Chestnut Avenue north Stoneham Park, Chestnut Avenue, Stoneham Lane, Eastleigh

Ref. O/15/76023 Received: 17/02/2015 (31/08/2015)

APPLICANT: Highwood Land LLP

PROPOSAL: Outline application with all matters reserved (except for access) for the demolition of existing buildings/structures and the development of: 1) on land south of Chestnut Avenue (North Stoneham Park) - 1100 dwellings (use class C3); - residential care home (use class C2); - creation of a new local centre - including a new primary school (2FE), children's pre- school nursery, community building, retail, office and other buildings and car parking (use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1a, D1, D2); - public open space, children's play equipment, associated hard and soft landscaping and works; - foul and surface water drainage measures including pumping stations; access from Chestnut Avenue and Stoneham Lane (with new accesses/works to Chestnut Avenue (existing), Chestnut Avenue/Nightingale Avenue, Chestnut Avenue/Stoneham Lane, Stoneham Lane/Stoneham Way Junctions and new accesses onto Stoneham Lane); new footway/cycleway links; 2) extension to Lakeside Country Park on land east of Stoneham Lane, including new pedestrian links, landscaping and associated works; 3) construction of a new cycleway/footway along Stoneham Lane (from north/east of St Nicolas Church, southwards to the administrative boundary with Southampton City); 4) use of land south of Junction 5 of the M27 motorway for playing pitches and construction of associated facilities (including changing pavilion/hub building, spectator stands, enclosures, all-weather playing surfaces; floodlighting); with new accesses onto Stoneham Lane; parking; new footway/cycleway; landscaping and associated works; and 5) associated engineering operations; on and off-site supporting infrastructure necessary to facilitate development of the site. This application is subject to an

3 Environmental Impact Assessment and is a departure from the development plan, and affects the setting of a listed building, and affects Public Rights of Way.

AMENDMENTS: 3 June 15, 18 June 15

RECOMMENDATION:

Subject to the consideration of outstanding consultee responses and any further resident comments received in respect of the press notice period (expires 3.7.15); and subject to the recommended conditions/any necessary condition additions or amendments and the Section 106 agreement terms specificed, delegate to Head of Development Management (in consultation with Chair and Ward Members) to:

GRANT OUTLINE PERMISSION

CONDITIONS AND REASONS:

(1) The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the following plans numbered: 34NS002A Sheets 1-10, 024.0013.102 Rev P6, 024.0013.107 RevP3, 024.0013.108 RevP6, 024.0013.109 RevP4, 024.0013.110 RevP3, 024.0013.111 RevP3, 024.0013.121 RevP1, 1135.P01A, 1135.P02B, 1135.P03B, 1135.P04A, 1135.P05B, 1135.P05A, 15002 .AP 004 Rev B, 15002 .AP 006 Rev B Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

(2) The permission hereby granted in an outline permission and an application for the approval by the Local Planning Authority of the following reserved matters (for at least the first phase of development) must be made no later than the expiration of one year beginning with the date of this permission: a) layout b) scale c) appearance d) landscaping of the site The development shall accord with the approved details. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail, encourage delivery and comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

(3) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 1 year from the date of the approval of the first Reserved Matters

4 Application. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail, encourage delivery and comply with Section92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

(4) Prior to the approval of the first reserved matters application for housing a detailed design code for the development shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The detailed design code shall demonstrate how the objectives of the Design and Access Statement will be met, and shall take account of the drawings referred to in Condition 1 above. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved design code unless otherwise agreed, in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The design code shall include the following : a) principles for determining quality, colour and texture of external materials and facing finishes for roofing and walls of buildings and structures including opportunities for using locally sourced, low embodied carbon and recycled construction materials; b) sustainable design and construction, in order to achieve a BREEAM Communities 'excellent' standard for the whole development; the equivalent of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 for energy and water for residential buildings and an ‘Excellent’ (BREEAM) New Construction rating for non residential buildings, maximising passive solar gains, natural ventilation, water efficiency measures and the potential for home composting and food production c) built form strategies to include density and massing, street grain and permeability, street enclosure and active frontages and relationships between buildings; d) principles for hard and soft landscaping including the inclusion of existing important trees and hedgerows e) structures including street lighting, floodlighting and boundary treatments for commercial, community, educational and residential premises; street furniture and play equipment f) design of the public realm, including layout and design of squares, areas of public open space, areas for play and allotments. g) Open space needs including sustainable drainage h) Conservation of ecological interests i) A strategy for the hierarchy of streets and spaces j) Alignment, width of and surface materials including quality, colour and texture proposed for all footways, cycleways, bridleways, roads, service margins and vehicular accesses to and within the site and individual properties k) On and off-street residential and commercial vehicle parking and loading areas l) Cycle parking and storage m) Waste and recycling bin storage and collection n) Means to discourage casual parking and encourage parking only in designated areas o) Integration of strategic utility requirements, landscape and street tree planting and highway design and planting of parking areas p) refuse requirements.

5 q) All carriage drive and other heritage restoration works Reason: To ensure a comprehensive approach to high quality design across the site.

(5) Plans and particulars showing the proposals for all the following aspects for each phase of development in accordance with the Design Code approved pursuant to condition 5 (where applicable) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before that phase of the development is commenced. The development must then accord with these approved details for that phase:

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

The development shall not be occupied until the approved details have been fully implemented, unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order that these matters may be considered by the Local Planning Authority.

(6) The development, including the phasing, must accord with the approved Design and Access Statement, parameter plans and Design Code approved, unless agreed in writing by the local planning authority, in response to Conditions 1 and 5 above. Reason: To ensure high quality development

(7) No development shall start until details and samples of all external facing and roofing materials in respect of buildings within each phase of development must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before that phase of development commences. The development of that phase must then accord with these approved details. Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of any building is satisfactory.

(8) A detailed strategy for the proposed disposal of foul and surface water (including a programme for implementation) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the

6 commencement of the development hereby permitted. Each phase of the development must demonstrate compliance with this strategy and the development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved strategy and details. Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision of foul and surface water drainage.

(9) No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. Surface water run-off should be controlled as near to its source as possible through a sustainable drainage approach to surface water management (SUDS). The drainage system should be designed to accommodate surface water runoff according to the following criteria: i) The surface water drainage system must be designed to control runoff and prevent flooding of property in up to a 1 in 100 year storm event, plus an allowance for an increase in storm intensity with climate change in line with National Planning Policy Framework. In line with CIRIA C635 "Designing for Exceedence in Urban Drainage", events under the 1 in 30 year return period should be contained within the system, while short- term surface flooding in events in exceedance of the 1 in 30 year return period is acceptable, so long as this can be safely stored without risk to people. ii) The rate at which surface water is discharged from the site may vary with the severity of the storm event but should be no greater than the undeveloped rate of runoff for a given event; iii)The drainage arrangement should also be such that the volumes of surface water leaving the site are no greater than that at pre- development. Long-term storage may be required to control any additional surface water volumes generated. iv) Surface water discharges to watercourses must not exceed a velocity of 1 m/s

Reason: To ensure that the drainage system is properly maintained the ownership and the responsibility for maintenance of the system should also be established as part of the drainage strategy

(10) No development shall take place until a landscape management strategy, including long-term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscaped areas (except privately owned domestic gardens), been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Each phase of the development must demonstrate compliance with this strategy through the submission of a landscape management plan and the development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved strategy and details.

The strategy and plan shall include the following elements:

7 - detail extent and type of new planting (NB planting to be of native species) - details of maintenance regimes - details of any new habitat created on site - details of any new wetlands/SUDs created on site and their future management - details of treatment of site boundaries and/or buffers around water bodies - details of management responsibilities.

Reasons: This condition is necessary to ensure the protection of wildlife and supporting habitat found on the site and to secure opportunities for the improvement of wildlife corridors and wider enhancement of the nature conservation value of the site in line with national planning policy.

(11) No development shall start until a site wide green infrastructure strategy, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall detail the extent and nature of the natural habitat, open space and corridors within the network. The network should incorporate all open space within the development and extend into the urban area via wildlife corridors and other enhancements. The strategy should be overarching, referencing all the species specific strategies and providing details relating to overall habitat connectivity within the network and any requirements above that provided for mitigation. The final green infrastructure should be multifunctional and provide gains for wildlife and the human population in line with national policy. Reason To ensure provision of a fully connected, multifunctional green infrastructure that can be access by the population and nature.

(12) Badger surveys shall be undertaken before each phase and submitted to Eastleigh Borough Council. If setts are discovered they should be ideally be protected within the development. If they require closure a licence will be obtained from Natural England. Reason To protect badgers from harm

(13) Prior to the submission of the first reserved matters application for the development hereby permitted, a detailed bat mitigation, enhancement monitoring and management strategy shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The strategy must incorporate details of:

i) A hedgerow plan incorporating the location and extent of mitigation for fragmentation and habitat loss and additional hedgerow habitat within the residential area ii) A plan of the locations of bat boxes for mitigation and enhancement iii) The extent and location of at least one dark corridor across the site to provide prime bat foraging habitat iv) A lighting plan with the aim of light spill not exceeding 1 lux in foraging corridors used by bat species and along woodland edges and riparian corridors.

8 v) A monitoring plan to monitor the foraging activity once the site is operational. vi) The resurveying before any works of all buildings and trees estimated to possess bat roosting potential before demolition, felling or other works to ascertain whether bats have colonised the potential roosts. (If roosts are found a licence is required from Natural England and appropriate mitigation provided for roosts to be lost.) Reason To ensure roosting bats are protected from harm and appropriate mitigation is provided.

Each phase of the development must demonstrate compliance with the approved strategy and must be fully implemented. Reason: To ensure the protection of bat species

(14) Prior to the submission of the first reserved matters application for the development hereby approved, a detailed Dormouse mitigation strategy shall be submitted with the first reserved matters application to provide i) A hedgerow plan incorporating the location and extent of mitigation for fragmentation and habitat loss, additional hedgerow habitat within the residential area ii) A plan of the locations of dormouse boxes for mitigation and enhancement iii) The extent and location of at least one dark corridor across the site to provide prime dormouse commuting and foraging habitat iv) A lighting plan with the aim of light spill not exceeding 1 lux in hedgerows and along woodland edges. v) A monitoring schedule detailing post construction monitoring

Each phase of the development must demonstrate compliance with the approved strategy and must be fully implemented. Reason: To ensure the protection of Dormice

(15) No development shall commence until an otter protection and enhancement strategy has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The strategy must include:

- An assessment of the corridor widths required to support otter movement. - Hedgerow retention and buffers - Management of the corridors in the short, medium and long term - Monitoring to ensure otter use of the site is not impacted by development . A strategy detailing measures to deter visitor and dog disturbance on the otter population - Details of any proposed bridges and crossing points over waterways

Each phase of the development must demonstrate compliance with the approved strategy and must be fully implemented. Reason to ensure the locality continues to support a thriving otter population.

9

(16) No development shall start until a wintering bird survey has been undertaken for Areas 12,12a (Lakeside extension) and Field C (Land South of M27/east of Thomas Lewis Way) and a strategy submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall include proposals for habitat creation and mitigation and each phase of the development shall comply with the approved strategy and be fully implemented. Reason: To ensure the protection of the bird population

(17) No development shall take place within each phase until a scheme for reptile translocation, mitigation management and monitoring plan been submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the agreed translocation shall take place before any developmet in each phase commences. Reason to ensure reptiles are fully protected and the population is enhanced

(18) Before development of each phase commences a preliminary archaeological survey to establish the location, extent and nature of archaeological sites within the site to be developed shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scope of further survey and mitigation arising shall be set out in a written scheme of investigation which shall secure an appropriate level of mitigation and recording and publication of results.. The development must not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved schemes. Reason: To protect archaeology

(19) As part of each reserved matters application a detailed Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement (including a programme for implementation) in accordance with British Standards Institution Code of practice for trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations British Standard BS 5837:2012 shall be submitted for each phase of the development and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Each phase of the development shall then accord with the details of protective fencing ground protection and other measures set out in each approved Method Statement. Reason: To protect trees both on and adjacent to the site.

(20) No work shall commence on each phase until the following has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the LPA: a. a Report of Preliminary Investigation comprising a Desk Study, Conceptual Site Model, and Preliminary Risk Assessment documenting previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance and as set out in Contaminated Land Report Nos. 11, CLR11, and BS10175:2011 Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice, and, unless otherwise agreed with the LPA, b. a Report of a site investigation documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as

10 appropriate by the Preliminary Investigation and in accordance with BS10175:2011, and BS 8576:2013 and unless otherwise agreed with the LPA c. a detailed site specific scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid the risk from contaminants and/or gases when the site is developed and proposals for future maintenance a and monitoring Such a scheme shall include nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works. Reason: To allow risk assessment and effective risk management solutions in order to minimise the risks of pollution and to ensure the site is satisfactorily decontaminated.

(21) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied / brought into use until there has been submitted to the LPA verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of condition 20(c) that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of condition 20(c) has been implemented fully in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written permission of the LPA in advance of implementation). Unless agreed in writing with the LPA such verification shall comply with the guidance contained in CLR11 and EA Guidance for the Safe Development of Housing on Land Affected by Contamination - R&D Publication 66: 2008. Typically such a report would comprise: a. A description of the site and its background, and summary of relevant site information, b. a description of the remediation objectives and remedial works carried out c. verification data, including - data (sample locations/analytical results, as built drawings of the implemented scheme ,photographs of the remediation works in progress, etc. d. Certificates demonstrating that imported and / or material left in situ is free from contamination, gas / vapour membranes have been installed correctly Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the scheme approved under condition 20(c) Reason: To minimise the risks of pollution and to ensure the site is satisfactorily de-contaminated.

(22) Before development of each phase commences, details of all crime prevention measures in respect of that phase must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development of that phase shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interest of crime prevention.

(23) Before each phase of development commences, a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), a construction phase public communication strategy and a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) in respect of that phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP and CTMP must

11 consider the timing and phasing of the works and lorry routing with a specific reference to the movement of traffic, whilst the CEMP must also consider the incidential recovery of minerals for construction works; the location of temporary site buildings and plant and material storage areas, the arrangement for construction deliveries, dust, piling, demolition, vibration, noise, construction traffic movements, lorry temporary construction car parking both on and off-site, temporary lighting , mud on the road, site security, a scheme for controlling noise and vibration from demolition and construction activities (to include piling);the protection of pedestrian routes during construction, storage of and collection of waste and the quality of surface water runoff, watercourse crossings and any proposed diversions (temporary or permanent), a map or plan showing habitat areas to be specifically protected (identified in the ecological report) during the works and any necessary mitigation for protected species. The construction of each phase must then be carried out in accordance with the agreed plan for that phase. Reason: In the interests of amenity, highway safety and protection of ecological features.

(24) Prior to the commencement of each phase of development (or in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, a sustainability report demonstrating how all of the essential requirements for non-residential development of the Eastleigh Borough Council adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’ are to be met including a BREEAM New Construction ‘excellent’ interim stage certificate and evidence in the form of design stage SAP data and a BRE water calculator demonstrating Code for Sustainable Homes level 4 standards for energy and water for residential buildings have been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development meets the national requirements and the non-residential requirements of the adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’.

(25) Prior to the commencement of each phase of the development hereby approved (or in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in writing with the local planning authority) other than for the access works a BREEAM Communities final certificate at Excellent level shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in respect of that phase. Reason: To demonstrate the required compliance with BREEAM Communities Excellent standard.

(26) Before each phase of development is commenced a detailed assessment of noise arising from road traffic on the proposed development and a detailed noise mitigation scheme to address such noise (with measures to provide satisfactory internal and external noise standards to include site layout and building orientation, building construction, glazing, mechanical ventilation, acoustic screening and phasing of development and occupation) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The internal noise standards to be achieved shall be

12 agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the submission of the noise mitigation scheme. The noise mitigation measures, as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be fully installed and verified as performing as required prior to the first occupation of each dwelling unit, and shall thereafter retained. Reason: in the interests of residential amenity and to protect business interests.

(27) Any external plant or equipment used for the purpose of air conditioning shall be provided with suitable acoustic attenuation, or sited at agreed locations, to mitigate the effects of noise as approved in writing by the local planning authority .The siting and installation of plant and equipment which gives rise, or is likely to give rise, to emissions to air of either ash, dust, fume, gases, grit, odours or soot shall be approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interests of amenity.

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

(29) No development shall commence on each phase until details of tree protection fencing within that phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this shall include a minimum of 15m buffers for all woodland. Work must not commence on each phase until a site meeting attended by the Arboricultural Consultant, Site Manager and local planning authority officer has taken place including an inspection and subsequent approval of the tree protection fencing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved no access by vehicles or placement of chemicals, fuels, soil or other materials shall take place within the fenced area. The tree protection fencing shall be retained in its approved form for the duration of the construction period of that phase. Reason: To retain and protect the existing trees which form an important part of the amenity of the locality.

(30) No development shall take place until a detailed method statement for either the removal or the long-term management/control of any invasive non-native species on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The method statement shall include proposed measures that will be used to prevent the spread of invasive species during any operations e.g. mowing, strimming or soil movement. It shall also contain measures to ensure that any soils brought to the site are free of the seeds/root/stem of any invasive plant covered under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended. Development shall proceed in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason: to prevent the spread of invasive non-native species. Without it, avoidable damage could be caused to the nature conservation value of the site

13

(31) Prior to the commencement of each phase of the approved works, details of paving and construction within the root zones of retained trees to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars in respect of that phase must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be in accordance with the British Standards Institution Code of practice for trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations British Standard BS 5837:2012 . The development of each phase must not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To conserve the trees adjacent to and within the proposed development.

(32) Prior to the commencement of each phase of development, details of a technology and communication strategy for the provision of broadband, fibre optic and audio visual technology within that phase must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The infrastructure must then be provided for use upon first occupation of the buildings hereby permitted within that phase and retained thereafter. Reason: To improve the opportunities to work from home and to reduce the proliferation of individual masts, aerials, satellite dishes and wiring on flatted and commercial blocks in the interests of visual amenity.

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

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

(35) Prior to the commencement of each phase of development, details of the type of construction proposed for the roads and footways within that phase of development including all relevant horizontal cross sections and longitudinal sections showing the existing and proposed levels together with details of street lighting and the method of disposing of surface water and details of the programme of implementation for the making up of the roads and footways must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Each phase of the development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details.

14 Reason: To ensure that the roads are constructed to a standard which will enable them to be taken over as publicly maintainable highways.

(36) Details of the use of any sound amplification equipment to be used in the non-residential uses hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the use of any such equipment. The sound amplification equipment shall not be used otherwise than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties.

(37) No burning of materials obtained by site clearance or any other source shall take place during the demolition, construction and fitting out process. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.

(38) No trenches for services or drains shall be sited within the Root Protection Area (RPA) as per BS5837:2012 of any trees that are to be retained on or adjoining the site. Reason: To protect the health and stability of the trees to be retained.

(39) No construction or demolition work shall take place except between 0800 hours to 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 hours to 1300 hours on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings.

(40) The community building and school hereby permitted shall not be open for use outside of the following times without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority: 0700 hours to 2200 hours Mondays to Thursdays and on Sundays and Bank Holidays, and 0700 hours to 2300 hours on Fridays and Saturdays. Reason: To protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

(41) Each retail or commercial unit to be included within the local centre within Use Classes A1, A2, A3,,A4, A5, D1 and D2 hereby permitted shall have a gross external floor area no greater than 500sqm unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure flexibility, choice and a variety of uses which contribute to the sustainability of the development and to safeguard the vitality and viability of Eastleigh town centre.

(42) The office development hereby approved shall be used only for purposes within Class B1a of the schedule to the Town and Country Planning [Use Classes] Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that/those Class[es] in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification] and for no other purposes. Reason: In the interests of visual and heritage amenity.

(43) Water vole surveys shall be undertaken before any work to waterways and/or ditches on the site commence. If water voles are found the

15 applicant shall provide appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures which shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To ensure protection of water voles and their habitat

(44) No development for each phase shall take place until a method statement/construction environmental management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall deal with the treatment of any environmentally sensitive areas and protected species including a plan detailing the works to be carried out showing how the environment will be protected during the construction works. Such a scheme shall include details of the following: i) The timing of the works ii) Watercourse crossings and any proposed diversions (temporary or permanent) iii) The measures to be used during construction in order to minimise environmental impact of the works (considering both disturbance and pollution prevention) iv) The ecological enhancements as mitigation for any loss of habitat resulting from the development v) A map or plan showing habitat areas to be specifically protected (identified in the ecological report) during the works vi) Any necessary mitigation for protected species vii) Construction methods viii) Any necessary pollution protection methods ix) Information on the persons/bodies responsible for particular activities associated with the method statement that demonstrate they are qualified for the activity they are undertaking. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement Reason: to ensure the protection of wildlife and its supporting habitat, avoid deterioration to a Water Framework Directive Waterbody, and secure opportunities for the enhancement of the nature conservation value of the site in line with national planning policy and as identified in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) accompanying the planning application

(45) No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision and management of buffer zones (which shall be larger than 8 metres in places to compensate for smaller buffers at crossings) alongside the existing watercourses, ponds and wetlands on site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and any subsequent amendments shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The buffer zone scheme shall be free from built development including lighting, domestic gardens, footpaths, cycleways and formal landscaping. The scheme shall include: plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zones i) details of any proposed planting scheme (for example, native species) ii) details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during development and managed/maintained over the longer term including

16 adequate financial provision and named body responsible for management plus production of detailed management plan iii) details of any proposed footpaths, fencing, lighting etc adjacent to the buffer zones. Reason: Development that encroaches on watercourses / ponds / wetlands has a potentially severe impact on their ecological value. Land alongside watercourses / wetlands / ponds is particularly valuable for wildlife and it is essential this is protected

Note to Applicant: Eastleigh Borough Council has taken all environmental information including the Environmental Statement dated February 2015, the Non-Technical Summary dated February 2015 and the Addendum to the Environmental Statement dated 3 June 2015 into consideration in reaching this decision.

Note to Applicant: In dealing with the application, Eastleigh Borough Council has in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner. Detailed advice has been made available in the form of planning policy, Supplementary Planning Documents and other informal advice as well as offering a full pre-application advice service and entering into a planning performance agreement. Solutions to challenges have been found and negotiation has overcome issues in order to achieve a positive outcome and to ensure the proposal has been dealt with in a timely manner.

Advice to Applicant: Flood Defence Consent: Under the terms of Section 109 of the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Southern Region Land Drainage and Sea Defence Byelaws, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of the Monks Brook, which is designated a ‘main river’. Please be aware that the Environment Agency has up to two months to determine applications for consent made under Section 109 of the Water Resources Act 1991. Consent will only be issued if the works do not pose a flood risk to people and property, and do not conflict with the Environment Agency's other duties.

There must be no surface alterations to the rights of way, nor any works carried out which affect its surface, without prior permission of Hampshire County Council, as Highway Authority. For the purposes of this proposal that permission would be required from the Countryside Planning department of the County Council.

Report:

1. This application has been referred to Committee because it is a major development which is contrary to the Development Plan, affects a

17 public right of way and the settings of listed buildings and is controversial.

The site and its surroundings

2. The site extends over 84.3 hectares and covers several parcels of land to the south of Eastleigh town, located either side of and including parts of Stoneham Lane and incorporating land south of Chestnut Avenue, land south of Junction 5 of the M27 motorway, land at Lower Hardmoor Stoneham Lane and land west of Lakeside Country Park.

The Main Chestnut Avenue site

3. Chestnut Avenue, which forms the northern boundary of the site, is a primary road linking Chandlers Ford with Eastleigh and connecting to Stoneham Lane, which in turn connects to Stoneham Way and Junction 5 of the M27 and Stoneham Lane itself runs to Southampton beyond. Eastleigh town centre lies just over 1.5km to the north-east and the residential area known as the Aviary Estate is to the immediate north. Public footpaths run through the various parts of the application site and also provide links to facilities beyond, including a route through Lakeside Country Park to Southampton Airport Parkway Rail Station.

4. The land south of Chestnut Avenue forms the main part of the development area and measures approximately 62 hectares. It comprises a mixture of formal recreation space, including the Doncaster Farm pitches, the Chandler’s Ford Golf Academy, AFC Stoneham site and Stoneham Park and associated buildings, as well as grazing land.

5. At the northern end of the site, adjoining Chestnut Avenue, is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC): the Chestnut Avenue Meadow SINC which is also known as Avenue Park, an area of informal public recreational space which includes mature specimen parkland trees, the Shrine war memorial (built by the Fleming family in 1917-18 and recently restored), and public footpaths (Footpath 53). Although within the application boundary there are NO proposals to develop the Avenue Park part of the site. The existing Doncaster Farm car park and access off Chestnut Avenue, which also serve Avenue Park, are to remain.

6. The public footpaths extend southwards between Avenue Park and St Nicolas Church/Stoneham Lane through grazing land and running past an existing lake owned by the Eastleigh and District Angling Club (the lake does not form part of the application site). The paths (Footpaths 54 and 56) run along the route of what is considered to be a historic avenue dating back to the 18th Century and some ancient parkland trees remain along this route.

18 7. A network of streams, watercourses and ditches cross the site and small parts on the south east corner and adjoining Stoneham Lane are shown within the floodplain of the Monks Brook. There are also substantial hedgerows and tree lines subdividing the area. A high pressure gas pipeline crosses the northern Doncaster Farm part of the site and is required to be safeguarded.

8. Home Wood, privately owned and managed by the Forestry Commission, is located to the west. There is currently no formally permitted public access to this dense woodland which is also designated as a SINC. To the south west is a smaller wooded area known as Kennel Copse and these woods open out onto the Stoneham Golf Course and Park Pond and Shrubbery Pond (beyond the Borough boundary).

9. East of the site Stoneham Lane has a National Cycle Route pedestrian/cycle path on its western side. There is a cluster of residential properties at or near its junction with Chestnut Avenue, including Grade 2 Listed dwellings. The Concorde Club and hotel are opposite the site’s south-eastern corner.

10. To the immediate south of the main application site is Park Farm, the former stables and coach house; a Grade 2 listed walled garden, an orchard, the Grade 2* St Nicolas Church and other buildings associated with the former use of the site as a private estate. All but the Church lie within the Test Valley jurisdiction as the boundary between Eastleigh and Test Valley Borough Council areas splits the former estate. Proposals for this part of the estate will be considered in the future by Test Valley Borough Council and their Policy COM5 allocates this land for a further 50 dwellings, requiring the retention of heritage buildings.

11. The site falls from circa 35m AOD in the north western corner to circa 10m AOD along Stoneham Lane. There is also a gentler south facing slope running from a high point on Cricketer’s Hill in the north down towards the modified stream valley and the fishing lakes within Test Valley. There are long views to/from the site eastwards, although the site is largely screened from other long views by woodland, hedges and trees.

Lakeside Country Park Extension site

12. Lakeside Country Park is to the east of Stoneham Lane and adjacent to the application site which extends eastwards of this road to include a 3.6ha parcel of land to form an extension to the Country Park. This land is currently privately owned wet grassland and is also in part designated SINC (Fen to the West of Lakeside SINC).

19 Land South of Junction 5 M27

13. This part of the overall application site is for replacement playing fields and ecological mitigation. It comprises 18.3ha of grassland either side of Stoneham Lane, south of Junction 5 and the motorway bridge over Stoneham Lane and also land east of the A335 Stoneham Way which is proposed for ecological mitigation. The eastern Stoneham Lane parcel is mainly flat with mature hedges and some trees. The western parcel, north of St George’s Catholic College, is terraced and runs up to the Southampton City Council boundary and again has mature hedges on boundaries and a small copse and recent tree planting. All parcels of land have been used as private sports pitches in the past but this use has since been abandoned. Public Footpath 28 runs west- east through the northern part of the eastern parcel and then southwards through the land east of Thomas Lewis Way.

Lower Hardmoor Sports Ground

14. This 2.0ha site which lies opposite the entrance to the Trojans site in Stoneham Lane, north of the motorway bridge, is also part of the application site and is proposed for temporary replacement playing fields and/or ecological mitigation. The site is well contained by existing planting on all sides.

Description of application

15. This is an outline planning application which seeks an approval “in principle” for • residential development of up to 1100 dwellings (use class C3), • residential care home (use class C2), • new local centre including a new primary school (2FE site), day nursery, community building, retail, office and other buildings (use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1a, D1, D2) • public open spaces including new central park, children’s play areas, • foul and surface water drainage measures including pumping stations, • landscaping and historic landscape restoration, • accesses from Chestnut Avenue and Stoneham Lane (1 access from Chestnut Avenue and 2 accesses from Stoneham Lane) • works to road junctions/rerouting of Stoneham Lane into the site; • new footway/cycle links • replacement playing fields and associated infrastructure/works • extension to Lakeside Country park with new pedestrian links • associated engineering operations and infrastructure

16. The only matters for formal consideration at this stage are as follows:-

• Whether the proposed land uses are acceptable in principle in this location;

20 • Whether the proposed amount of development is appropriate; • Whether the proposed vehicular access and roundabouts are acceptable.

17. All other matters of detail, such as the detailed layout, scale, appearance, design and landscaping are not for detailed consideration at this stage. The application seeks approval for the following:

• Uses - residential-led mixed use development with other land uses including education, care home, retail, food and drink, employment, assembly and leisure and open spaces • Parameters – site location, land use, density, building heights, public open space and access parameters • Access – the primary accesses for the site from Chestnut Avenue and Stoneham Lane.

18. The application is supported by the following plans and documents;

• Planning Application Form and Certificates • Location Plan (Red Line Plan) • Design and Access Statement and Development Brief • Parameter Plans: - land use, density, building heights, public open space, access • Highway Plans • Illustrative Plans – Masterplans, site surveys and pitch layout • Planning Statement (Inclusive of Affordable Housing Statement, Playing Pitch Proposals, Public Art Statement, Economic Regeneration Statement) • Sustainability Report • Statement of Community Involvement • Outline Energy Strategy • Arboriculture Development Statement (including Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment) • Draft Section 106 Heads of Terms • Services Appraisal (utilities) • BREEAM Communities Interim Certificate • Bird Hazard Management Plan • Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary • Environmental Statement Main Report and associated Appendices which include - Ecology (including Extended Phase 1 Habitat Surveys), Landscape and Visual Amenity Assessment, Highways and Traffic (Transport Assessment), Drainage and Flood Risk, Noise, Air Quality, Solid Waste Management, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Assessment (including Historic Landscape Assessment) , Ground Conditions, Lighting and Minerals

21 19. The application was formally amended on 3 June 2015 to address comments raised during the application process. The amendments comprise:

• Covering letter explaining amendments • Amended Design and Access Statement • Amended parameter plan for Land Use • Amended Illustrative Masterplan • Amended parameter plan for Density • Amended Environmental Statement • Amended Floor Areas schedule

20. The amendments were re-advertised and neighbours and consultees re-notified in accordance with the planning regulations, with a 21 day period to comment on these amendments. The press notice period expires on 3 July 2015.

21. The illustrative masterplan and supporting information with the application seek to demonstrate that the site has the capacity to accommodate a development of up to 1100 dwellings, new park and supporting infrastructure. These also show possible internal development blocks within the site; footway and cycleway links within the site and to adjoining uses; key landscape features including SINCs, tree and hedge retention, proposed balancing ponds/SUDs features; public open space areas with equipped play areas, wildlife mitigation areas, new landscaping and the scale and density of the development across the site. The public footpaths running through the site are to be retained and enhanced with the restoration of part of the historic parkland and carriage drives within the central core of the site. Residential development would be located to the west and east of this central park, with the new local centre in the south-eastern corner, opposite the Concorde Club. The care home, replicating the original mansion house, stands alone between the former stables (Park Farm) and St Nicolas Church and is envisaged to be part of a care village which includes the adjoining land in Test Valley and the restoration of the Park Farm and associated buildings and Listed walled garden. An indicative phasing plan illustrates the likely phasing of development with the first phase accessed off Chestnut Ave and development off Stoneham Lane and the new road crossing the site thereafter. These would be subject to reserved matters applications. It is anticipated the entire site would take approximately 8-10 years to develop out. Indicative pitch layouts are shown for the new playing fields provision, although these are only one option which could work within the site parameters

22. This is a Schedule 2 EIA development and significantly above the indicative screening thresholds advised by the NPPG. The proposal has been screened and scoped under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011 as needing an Environmental Statement and subsequent Environmental

22 Impact Assessment. The maximum parameters tested by the Environmental Statement are those identified by the parameter plans.

23. Screening was also undertaken to establish whether a Habitats Regulations Assessment is required. It was concluded that, with the mitigation proposed and conditions to control impacts, no likely significant impacts on any European Designated sites would occur as a result of the development and Appropriate Assessment is not required

History of North Stoneham Park

24. North Stoneham Park is a historic park registered on the Hampshire Historic Parks and Gardens list. Although not a statutorily protected site it is well documented. A full heritage assessment of the site is contained within the submitted Environmental Statement, focussing on the northern part where the development is proposed. Originally a medieval deer park, the formal park was developed as a designed landscape during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, including the limited involvement of Lancelot ‘Capability’ Brown in the 1770’s when the landscaped was redesigned, earlier landscape features removed and new ones introduced. Avenue Pond, between the proposed new park and the retained Avenue Park open space, was one of several landscape-designed lakes. Historic maps indicate that the original North Stoneham House was situated immediately west or north west of St Nicolas Church with the avenue of trees aligned to it. It was demolished in the early 19th Century and rebuilt some 400m to the west (beyond the application site) to a Thomas Hopper design and also demolished in the 1960’s. The historic park was dismantled during the early part of the 20th century and disposed of piecemeal, such that it has lost much of its historic character and the majority of its buildings. Remnants of carriage drives are evident within both the Eastleigh and Test Valley parts of the estate and there remains some of the original avenue of trees adjoining the carriage drive which runs north-south through the proposed new park. The War Memorial Shrine within Avenue Park also forms part of the site’s history.

25. Buildings which do remain are within the Test Valley boundary and include Park Farm (a former coach house/stable block) which has been converted to residential use with some inappropriate alterations; the walled garden which is in poor repair but is Listed; the ice house (again in poor repair) and the orangery. Associated with the former estate are St Nicolas Church to the immediate south of the main site (originally built in the 13th Century and rebuilt between 1590 and 1610, restored in 1826 by Thomas Hopper and restored again in the late 19th Century), the Old Rectory (now part of Stoneham Gate offices), the flanking walls to the Stoneham Lane entrance and the Listed gated entrance to the former rectory opposite and the former school (now the Concorde Club). Although the evidence is inconclusive, there may have been a medieval village near St Nicolas Church.

23 26. The application site forms only part of the original estate which extended to include the land now used for golf course, playing fields, lakes and woodland to the south and west (within the Test Valley and Southampton CC areas), and which is now bisected by the M3 motorway.

Relevant planning history

27. The application is relevant to two other outline applications which jointly propose improved, segregated access for pedestrians and cyclists along Stoneham Lane and further replacement playing pitch provision at the Hardmoor site, adjacent to the Trojans site, within the Test Valley Borough area as well as improvements to the Trojans site itself. Both have received planning permission: O/15/75843 (EBC) and 15/00118/OUTS (TVBC): Outline (with access to be considered): Provision of a new sports clubhouse and associated facilities to replace existing clubhouses/pavilions; new multi-use sports pitches with associated enclosures and floodlighting; new areas for the parking of cars, coaches, minibuses and cycles; access improvement works (linking to and within Stoneham Lane); associated landscaping and works, engineering operations and supporting infrastructure; demolition of existing buildings.

28. Land south of M27: In 1994 outline permission was allowed at appeal on the land south of the M27 for a community football and leisure stadium which fell within both Eastleigh and Southampton boundaries. Although proceeding to reserved matters stage the scheme was not pursued.

29. Land south of Chestnut Avenue: F/08/63321 – erection of school in north west corner of site with access off Chestnut Avenue refused 2008.

30. Avenue Park: F/09/64626 – restoration of First World War memorial shrine permitted 2009; tree works approved 2009.

Local Resident Representations received

31. To the original plans 145 letters of objection were received from local residents and those working in Eastleigh with concerns relating to;

Transport matters • Roads system currently inadequate and no capacity for further traffic • Buses will not serve Chestnut Avenue as existing • Stoneham Lane currently inadequate for pedestrians and cyclists • Access to and parking for Eastleigh Football Club inadequate • Further routes and junctions need to be assessed • Loss of public parking at Doncaster Farm

24 • Insufficient parking proposed

Landscape/Gap/historic parkland impact • Visually intrusive and out of character • Loss of historic parkland • Over development and inappropriate density and scale • Loss of strategic gap • Loss of recreational and walking areas.

Infrastructure • Inadequate drainage infrastructure • Health facilities currently inadequate • Limited existing school places in area • Current flooding problem along Stoneham Way and Chestnut Rise

Ecology • Impact on wildlife • Loss of hedgerows

Environmental matters • Impact on air quality from traffic and loss of green space which absorbs pollution • Noise impacts

Other matters • A new Local Plan should be progressed and adopted with public involvement before large scale development is supported. • Devaluation of property • Loss of existing playing pitches and replacements not enough • Unwanted increase in population from outside the area • Alternative brownfield sites should be developed which could also provide the benefits being proposed • Landowners are HCC and EBC and decision should be referred to higher body • Query capacity of site to accommodate development proposed • Affordable housing proposed is insufficient • Other development locally has been refused and a permission would be inconsistent with these decisions

32. Following a re-notification of the amended plans and Environmental Statement updates on 4 June 2015 any further neighbour responses will be reported and considered

33. 2 letters of support received.

Consultation responses (summarised)

34. Head of Regeneration and Planning Policy – No objection to the principle of development. See main text for relevant policies.

25 Development Plan position: The starting point for the determination of this planning application is the Development Plan which in this instance are the saved policies of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 (EBLPR). The site adjoins the southern edge of Eastleigh in an area identified as countryside on the proposals map, covered by policy 1.CO of the EBLPR. This policy serves to resist residential development in the countryside. The proposals map also confirms that this site forms part of the strategic gap separating Eastleigh and Southampton. Policy 2.CO of the EBLPR states that proposals which would physically or visually diminish a strategic gap should not be permitted. Evidence submitted by the applicant suggests that the impact on the strategic gap is moderate and can be mitigated by retaining key landscape features and additional planting.

35. In principle, the proposed development is contrary to the Development Plan. If the proposals were to be supported, as set out in Para 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, there would need to be ‘material considerations’ that would support a decision other than in accordance with the adopted plan.

36. Other material planning considerations: Of significant weight in the determination of this planning application is the NPPF where there is an overall presumption in favour of sustainable development. At the heart of the NPPF is a requirement on behalf of every Local Planning Authority to proactively drive and support sustainable development. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF makes it clear that where the Development Plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole. The housing supply policies of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2001- 2011 were not saved. Based on an interim housing requirement figure of 615 dwellings per annum (see the report to December’s meeting of Cabinet), the Council currently considers that it has 4.5 years of housing supply (see 31 Dec 2014 based Housing Implementation Strategy). Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires that local planning authorities should maintain a five-year supply of housing land. Clearly the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land and therefore paragraph 14 of the NPPF is of significant relevance.

37. In this context, the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 is noted. This Plan was submitted for examination in July 2014. In February 2015, the Planning Inspector issued his final report which specifically addressed housing need, housing supply and economic growth. He expressed concern that insufficient housing was being provided to meet affordable housing need and address market signals and therefore found the plan unsound.

26 38. Although found unsound, the Plan has not been withdrawn from examination and therefore technically remains a material planning consideration and a submitted plan for the purposes of interpreting the NPPF. However, the findings of the Inspector in relation to the borough’s housing requirements clearly undermine the Plan’s strategy and policies for guiding future development. The other proposed allocations and ‘Development Management’ policies remain untested. Overall the weight that can be attributed to the policies of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 is very little. Nevertheless it represents the most recent statement of the Council’s development strategy for the borough. It is also supported by a substantial evidence base, including sustainability appraisal, transport assessment and habitat regulation assessment. These studies appraised the in-combination impact of the development proposed in the Local Plan and sought to demonstrate that the Local Plan proposals were sound and provided for sustainable development. Whilst it is accepted that the Inspector had fundamental concerns with the sustainability appraisal in that the proposed overall housing provision of the Plan was insufficient, these studies were otherwise untested. It is the Council’s position that these documents demonstrate that, in principle, the in-combination impact of 10,140 dwellings distributed across the borough as proposed in the Local Plan, would be acceptable with mitigation.

39. The site subject of this application was a strategic site appraised in the above studies, located immediately adjoining the main town in the borough with associated facilities and services. The quantum of development either permitted/completed, or still in the process of going through the planning system, is still below the 10,140 dwelling ceiling appraised. In addition, the evidence submitted with the application further demonstrates that the scheme (with mitigation) would contribute towards sustainable development and would not cause an unacceptable impact on any heritage, landscape, transport or environmental constraint.

40. The degree to which the proposals accord with the specific requirements of policy E1 (which were in themselves informed & tested through the above studies) are assessed briefly below:

i Provision for 1,100 dwellings of a range of type, size and tenure to include specific provision to meet specialised housing needs including accommodation for older people; Masterplanning suggests this quantum of development could be accommodated. The provision of a landmark building for accommodation for older people is noted although the views of English Heritage and our Conservation Officer should be sought on whether sufficient details have been submitted of this particular component of the scheme.

ii the development provides a local centre, and other community facilities and services necessitated by the development including a primary school (subject to Local Education Authority requirements);

27 The masterplan allows for this. Additional information submitted on 20 April 2015 could be interpreted to suggest A1 retail floorspace of up to 1700 m2 is being sought. Clarity on this matter should be sought prior to determining this application.

iii the development protects and where possible enhances nature conservation interests. In particular, the development shall not have an adverse impact on the nature conservation interests of adjoining sites but where necessary will buffer and contribute towards their enhanced management; - the views of the Council’s biodiversity officer should be sought in this regard

iv the height and density of buildings within the site responds to the topography of the site and the site’s visibility in the surrounding area; - the masterplan and supporting evidence appears to demonstrate that, in principle, the height and density of buildings can be acceptably controlled through condition and at the reserved matters stage.

v the key features of the historic landscape are considered sympathetically, including the land which forms part of the setting to The Shrine which should be retained and restored as necessary. The setting of listed buildings to the south of the site should not be adversely affected by development; -as above, the masterplanning suggests that the key features of the historic landscape will be considered sympathetically. The views of English Heritage and the Council’s our Conservation Officer should be sought on whether sufficient details have been submitted of this particular component of the scheme

vi the areas of woodland on the western and south-western boundaries of the site shall be retained as woodland and form part of the wider Forest Park proposals; -the masterplan allows for this

vii the playing fields are retained within the site unless the Council is satisfied that compensatory replacement can be provided which is of equal or greater benefit to the wider community than that which it replaces; - replacement playing fields of at least an equal benefit are proposed as part of this application

viii sufficient on-site open space is provided to meet the needs of the proposed development; -the masterplan allows for this

ix footpath and cycle links are provided across the site to connect Chestnut Avenue and Stoneham Lane to Home Wood and Kennel Copse (which form part of the proposed Forest Park) to the south and west;- the masterplan allows for this

x priority biodiversity links are maintained and enhanced, in particular the link between Lakeside County Park and the proposed Forest Park;

28 - the views of the Council’s biodiversity officer should be sought in this regard

xi vehicular access to the site is provided from both Chestnut Avenue and close to the junction of Stoneham Lane and Stoneham Way with associated highway improvements to existing junctions; - the masterplan allows for this

xii improvement of the junction between Chestnut Avenue and Stoneham Lane involving an increase in the size of the roundabout; - the masterplan allows for this

xiii financial contributions are made towards (amongst other things): a. the Forest Park proposals; b. an extension to the Lakeside Country Park; c. a new cycle & footpath along Stoneham Lane to connect the site to the city of Southampton; and d. any other off-site highway improvements necessary to serve the development;- will need to be secured through S106 agreement

xiv where necessary, the prior extraction of mineral resources before development; --it is understood that the applicant has demonstrated that the prior extraction of mineral resources is not viable

xv connection to the sewerage system and the water distribution system shall be provided at the nearest point of adequate capacity as advised by Southern Water, and access to the existing water main shall be secured for future maintenance and upsizing purposes; and will need to be secured through S106/condition

xvi the development shall achieve BREEAM Communities excellent standard in accordance with policy DM2g. - working towards this.

The relevant components sought by policy E1 appear to have been met. Some elements will need to be referred to be assessed in further detail at the reserved matters stage. In principle, the proposals also appear to be compliant with policies E13 and E14 of the Local Plan. Overall conclusion: taking the above into account, and the overall policies and principles of the NPPF, material planning considerations are of sufficient weight to indicate that the principle of development is acceptable on this site, despite the conflict with the policies in the Development Plan. The site has been subject of a significant amount of testing through studies and evidence base work that informed the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 and demonstrated that this site, in-combination with other proposed development of up to 10,140 dwellings was capable of being delivered as sustainable development. The application is supported by a further significant evidence base which has been submitted with the application which again would appear to demonstrate that the proposal is acceptable in principle.

29 Dwellings from this site are already counted in the Council’s calculation of its five year housing land supply. Subject to addressing the views of other consultees, and a couple of minor queries in the response above, no objection is raised to this application. Public Art Comments: Contributions required - to be used to create public artworks linked to history of site, Capability Brown landscape and integrated into community building. A community focused public art programme for the Development is envisaged. Conservation/heritage officer: initial comments: The proposed 'landmark building' close to the church does not appear to have a meaningful relationship to the existing old stables (to be restored) and given the character of the proposed building could be mistaken as the original building. Another aspect of the positioning of this building is the interruption of the view between the shrine and the church. This relationship between the two existing structures is very important and apart from this building has been maintained. Post amendment comments 29-4-15 This latest revision (ensuring the views between the Shrine and Church and of the former stables are retained) has taken on board my last comments regarding siting and juxtaposition to the stables. The essence of any comments here relate to harm and benefit. The original house was situated somewhere in the vicinity here but no finite evidence has yet been discovered of exactly where it was. This could be argued as the harm element that this new building could be construed as a replacement of the original house. The heritage benefits are related to restoration works at the former stables and Church, the former also benefiting from a larger congregation. The execution of the design will be of the utmost importance and it is very important that the building does not come up higher than the tree line. The current proposed setting relates to the stables well and is set at a good distance from the listed buildings – rectory, gates and church which is grade II*. Landscape and Design officer advice: with regard to the updated submission (21-4-15) concerning the positioning of a new building referred to above it appears that the revised positioning of the building has had better regard to the adjoining stables and that the frontage of this will remain visible from the east. The vista to the church from the main vantage point to the north will not be obstructed by the built form and that regard has been given to avoid breaking the skyline from the north in medium/longer views. In my view the one additional benefit which needs to be added is that of providing a focus for the proposed vista looking south from land around the shrine, on the basis that the original 'avenue' would have been created for this purpose. Amendments to the D&A statement which were sought now received. Sustainability officer: The proposals accord with our policy requirements for sustainability. A pre-assessment estimate showing how BREEAM Communities excellent can be achieved at detailed stage is needed.

41. Head of Transportation and Engineering – No objection in principle. Query Transport Assessment information regarding queue lengths; bus

30 provisions required; Stoneham Lane footway to link to Southampton CC footway and should be lit; improvements to Lakeside cycle route needed; cycleway at edge of M27 J5 roundabout suggested; internal site layout comments; Road Traffic Orders necessary to manage on- site parking; travel plan comments; detail within Design and Access statement to be dealt with at reserved matters stage.

42. Head of Housing and Environmental Health: Environmental Health– No objection in principle to development. Noise, contaminated land and air quality matters to be subject to conditions/mitigation measures. Further information on air quality sought as development likely to give rise to a small negative impact in air quality on the neighbouring road network, including the Eastleigh Air Quality Management Area. Also further noise information required at reserved matters stage when siting and orientation of buildings is being considered. Housing – No objection. A provision of 35% affordable housing units is required with this scheme to deliver a tenure split 65% affordable rent & 35% shared ownership. Rent units would be a mix across the unit sizes and all dwellings must be to Lifetime Homes standards and 3% are to be built to Wheelchair Accessible Standards. The scheme will need to clusters the affordable housing within groups of 10 – 15 units, whilst each phase will need to deliver 35%.

43. Parks and Open Space Manager – No objection in principle. Seeking play provision to be moved closer to local centre.(plans amended). Children’s play areas (locally equipped area of play – LEAPs) and a teenage facility to be provided through developer contributions in accordance with EBC policy standards with maintenance contributions secured.

44. Head of Sports and Active Lifestyles - Sport & Active Lifestyles have welcomed the opportunity for early and continual engagement with the developer, Highwood Group. As such, the plans to relocate the loss of the three playing pitches and associated facilities (AFC Stoneham, Doncaster Farm and Stoneham Park) to Hardmoor and Trojans (part of the Test Valley SE/TV/2015/38775/S application) and to the former Monks Brook playing pitches (land south of junction 5 of the M27) have been developed alongside our users, partners and stakeholders. The loss of the pitches can be accommodated within the areas of land provided as well as the ability to provide the required additional provision that will be generated by the increase in population from the 1100 new homes, in line with the Borough’s Playing Pitch Strategy. Sport & Active Lifestyles wishes to reserve the right to amend the exact pitch layout shown, as further discussions with key users and partner organisations is required to ensure the best layout to face the needs of the Borough for the future. However, Sport & Active Lifestyles have no objections to the principle of the relocation of the lost playing pitches at Stoneham, Doncaster Farm and Stoneham Park to Hardmoor, Trojans and the former Monks Brook Playing fields. The Council wishes to deliver the new playing pitch project in house and therefore seeks

31 contributions from Highwood Group through the section 106 agreement. The level of contribution will affect the level of additionality that can be provided. Negotiations with Highwood Group are ongoing. Alongside Sport England policy, Sport & Active Lifestyles would insist that no development on the existing sites can be started without the prior completion of the new facilities, or where agreed with the Council, suitable temporary facilities are provided on site or within the close vicinity until completion of the new facilities.

45. Head of Countryside and Trees (Ecologist) - no objection is raised following the submission of further information in support of the ES. Foul Sewerage discharge – Southern Water to ensure that there is capacity of Chickenhall WWTW to take foul sewerage from the site whilst remaining within its environmental cap regarding the discharge of phosphates into the River Itchen, which in turn affects the ecosystem for the Southern Damselfly. Air Quality: does not need further assessment and can be disregarded in relation to ecology. Drainage – the SuDS scheme for surface water drainage needs to be undertaken in accordance with recommended guidance due to the need to protect the highly protected River Itchen and its tributary Monks Brook, with ecologist advice when the details are prepared. Water Flows – welcome assurance that water flows will remain similar to those present currently. Forest Park - content with approach application taken that an appropriate alternative to the uncertain Forest Park scheme in terms of New Forest mitigation is the delivery of the on-site park/public open space at the main site and Lakeside extension with green links to Lakeside Country Park, combined with public use of Home Wood or other adjoining woodland. Bats and dormice (bats present and dormice assumed) –much of the development will be dark and it is proposed that Avenue park remains unlit. This corridor and the corridor adjacent to Chestnut Avenue SINC are important foraging corridors for some rare species of bat and therefore it is important these dark corridors are maintained within the detailed stage subject to health and safety considerations. I confirm I am now more than happy that the very special foraging community of bats and the population of dormice will be protected within the development. Conditions will be required to include monitoring of bats and dormice and mitigation, also otter mitigation. Reptiles- surveys of the land south of M27 resulted in 13 slow worms and 4 adult common lizards being recorded on the receptor site. Three juvenile slow worms were recorded and no juvenile common lizards. On the development site a maximum of 6 adult slow worms and 1 adult common lizard were recorded over a 13.3 ha area. The boundaries of this site were most suitable for reptiles and hence given the population of reptiles recorded on the development site and the population recorded on the receptor site, it is considered that the receptor site would be an ideal location for the development site reptiles as this will maintain the local reptile population and the proposed enhancement (hibernacula and skylark plots which will provide hibernation sites and basking sites respectively) and future management of the site will be an overall enhancement to the site. I am

32 happy for the reptile receptor site to be used. Breeding birds- surveys and mitigation can be conditioned. Sites of Importance to Nature Conservation (SINCs) to be protected and Green Infrastructure provided.

46. Borough Tree officer – no objection subject to condition securing an arboricultural method statement, tree survey and pre-commencement site visit. The NPPF para 118 gives advice on the protection and retention of veteran trees (trees of great age, size or condition and of exceptional, cultural, landscape or nature conservation value) which are present on the site and for which there is considerable space for them to be safeguarded.

47. Head of Direct Services – no comments to make at this stage

48. Economic Development Officer - An employment and skills plan to be included as part of the Section 106 agreement.

49. Hampshire Chamber of Commerce – supports proposals. Would like to see industrial development (logistics) included and housing densities maximised. Bus services should be diverted through site and supported. Upgrades to pedestrian/cycleway link to Southampton Airport Parkway Station supported; support removal of existing business parking on the site in order that bus service use is maximised.

50. HCC Highways – no objection. Further surveys and assessment were required and considered. The proposed development has been demonstrated to result in an impact upon the local highway network across all modes, as demonstrated in the Transport Assessment work. In order to off-set this impact a number of mitigation measures have been put forward by the applicant which are to be secured by way of Section 106 Agreement (Junction improvements and sustainable transport works and contributions required)

51. HCC Minerals and Waste – No objection subject to condition to include incidental reuse of minerals for construction where possible.

52. HCC Rights of Way – concerned about the proximity of housing to west of public footpath 54 through parkland and need clarification of legal process for upgrading footpath to cycleway.)

53. HCC Children’s Services – support primary school on site with land for 2FE school/1.5FE to be initially built. (Discussions ongoing regarding S106 terms). No secondary school contributions required. .

54. HCC Archaeologist - No objection subject to conditions.

55. Historic England (formerly English Heritage) – following receipt of additional/amended plans and information - no objection to development. Content in respect of the setting of St Nicolas Church

33 Grade 2* Listed Building, which would benefit from tree works to open up views. Recognise real potential benefits for the historic environment in respect of the site and adjoining Park Farm and Listed walled garden which need to be secured through S106.

56. Environment Agency – no objection in principle but wish for conditions relating to the following to be added; sustainable drainage strategy, construction environmental management plan, buffering details for watercourses, ponds and wetland areas, landscape management plan, strategy for eradicating Japanese Knotweed

57. Natural England – No objection in respect of the River Hamble or River Itchen European sites. Standing advice for protected species and ancient woodland. No loss of safeguarded agricultural land or designated landscape. Biodiversity enhancements sought.

58. Hampshire & the Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust – initial concerns over lack of surveys on land south of M27 and extent of surveys for reptiles, bats, breeding birds, and proposed mitigation for farmland and other birds and field S of M27. Request for contribution for catchment-wide Himalayan balsam removal rather than works in Monks Brook. (further survey work now undertaken and Trust reconsulted)

59. Ramblers –. FP28 not shown in correct position on land South of M27. Pedestrian only route needs to be provided if existing path west of new open space is to be shared with vehicles. Need clarity on which areas are to be adopted and the opportunities to add new paths to the Definitive Map.

60. Southern Water – There is inadequate capacity within local network to provide foul sewerage disposal and water supply and upgrades to the systems will be necessary, to be provided at the developers’ expense. There are existing water mains and sewers crossing the site, which would need to be protected or diverted. An acceptable SUDS system is necessary for surface water drainage. Condition recommended.

61. Southern Electric – no comments received.

62. Southampton Airport - no objection in principle, will comment on reserved matters.

63. Crime Prevention Officer - no comments received

64. Eastleigh Access Group - no comments received

65. HSE/Gas pipeline operator – do not advise against grant of planning permission. Safeguarding of the high pressure gas pipeline required. The pipeline is designated by the Health and Safety Executive as a Major Hazard Pipeline. A PAHDI consultation response indicates that the residential development indicated would be acceptable but the

34 school must be located more than 201m from the pipeline (as proposed).

66. Highway England – have sought clarification on the modelling used to forecast traffic growth and assess the impact of the development on junction 5 of the M27. Await comments on amended TA addendum

67. Southampton CC – seeking contributions toward secondary education and transport infrastructure (footway/cycleway link in Stoneham Lane).

68. Test Valley BC – no objection in principle. Some concerns in respect of the implications for the setting of, and views of, the Park Farm buildings in relation to St Nicolas Church and the effect of building (the proposed care home) and access links on the historic landscape and potential impact on the retained green avenue and walled garden. Further information sought (provided). The sports pitch reprovision includes land within Test Valley to which there is no objection in principle subject to appropriate community access arrangements. Appropriate provision should be made for the management of the public using Home Wood.

69. Chandlers Ford Parish Council – no comments received

70. Trojans – support in principle for sports relocation. Comments on options for this replacement which may raise issues for the Hardmoor/Trojans element of this project including floodlighting and costs of running facilities. Further discussions needed as project proceeds to detailed stage.

71. English Cricket Board – primary concern is to mitigate against loss of existing pitch at Doncaster Farm and then to accommodate for the increased demand from the increase in population in the area.

72. Save Stoneham Park Action Group – no comments received

73. The Forestry Commission – the current lease on Home Wood restricts public access and there are no public rights of way through the wood. Home Wood is part of a wider Forest Park proposal for which there are no details currently and this project has a large degree of uncertainty. The impact on the part of Home Wood which is SINC would need to be assessed. Willing to consider appropriate public access and management subject to funding provision.

74. Ancient Monument Society – no comments received.

75. Sport England – Need to ensure that all playing fields will be replaced, including cricket. Replacement facilities to be delivered prior to loss of existing facilities. Need to ensure that contribution for project is sufficient. Support principle of mini-soccer provision on land south of M27 subject to safe links across Stoneham Lane and adequate

35 ancillary facilities. Support use of Hardmoor site for AFC Stoneham relocation.

76. HCC Estates (part landowner) – no formal comments received

77. Hampshire Gardens Trust – objection on grounds of impact on Strategic Gap, impact on historic landscape with the site which is designated on the Hampshire Register of Parks and Gardens, and concern that the scale of development will put pressure on the remnants of the estate outside of the application site (stables, kitchen garden, orangery and lakes). Consider that there is evidence of the involvement of Launcelot “Capability” Brown in the estate’s landscape design although not clearly in its execution.

78. Diocese of Winchester (St Nicolas Church) – support overall; would like to see community building closer to church and additional parking provided at local centre; concerned that new road through site may become a “rat run”; support provision of central park and proposed tree planting/tree management; support provision of care home in location proposed; would like to be involved with community building scheme; seek developer contributions to assist with upgrades and improvements to Church and associated facilities. Concern that ringing of church bells may cause complaints and this may then be restricted.

79. The Woodland Trust - no comments received

80. CPRE Hampshire – no comments received

81. Eastleigh Town Centre Partnership/BID – no comments received

82. Hampshire County Golf Union – no comments received

83. Willis Fleming Estate – willing to work with the 3 Local Authorities in respect of delivery of the Forest Park scheme. Will consider changes to lease of Home Wood with Forestry Commision to enable public access.

84. North Stoneham.org.uk- no comments received.

85. Eastleigh and District Angling Club – access and parking for Avenue Pond anglers must continue to be provided, controls necessary to ensure environmental quality of Avenue Pond is maintained; quiet environment will be compromised and needs to be considered in respect of details for development and landscaping around the pond. Fencing of pond may be necessary. Asset value of pond will be reduced.

86. Eastleigh & Southern Parishes Older Persons Forum - no comments received

36 87. BT Openreach - no comments received

88. Aviary Residents Association – no comments received

89. Velmore Residents and Tenants Association – no comments received

90. NHS England – a new surgery in Eastleigh is not required. Off-site contributions for increasing capacity at existing surgery(ies) recommended.

91. South West Hampshire Clinical Commissioning Group – verbal advice received concurring with NHS advice above. Will provide further information on project to be funded by development.

92. Parkside and Newtown Surgeries – no comments received

93. Sustrans - no comments received

94. Bus operators – no comments received

95. South West Trains – no comments received

96. The Woodland Trust - – no comments received

97. The Concorde Club – concerned to ensure that development does not increase surface water run-off and risk of flooding for Club site; would like to connect to any new foul sewage provision; development should accord with planning policies and guidance for improving environmental quality, infrastructure provision, highway works and controlling flood risk. New roundabout to include access arm to Concorde Club may need modification to account for Club’s needs.

98. Winchester and Eastleigh Design Review Panel – reviewed at pre- application stage and considered plans showed strong and well considered character areas but too much emphasis on hedgerow retention and primary routes need to be reconsidered. Central park an excellent feature and relationship of housing to park is a primary issue. Further to west dwellings need to connect to adjoining woodland. The position of the village centre is logical and carefully considered.

Policy context: designation applicable to site

• Designated Countryside; • Designated Strategic Gap • Solent Mitigation and Disturbance Zone; • New Forest disturbance zone • Tree Preservation Orders • Mineral Safeguarding Zone. • Flood Zones 1and 2

37 • Eastleigh Landscape Character Areas 5 (Itchen Valley Sports Pitches) and 6 (North Stoneham Park)

National Planning Policy Framework

99. The NPPF states that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Para 14 sets out a general presumption in favour of sustainable development and states that development proposals which accord with the development plan should be approved without delay. Where the development plan is absent, silent, or relevant policies are out-of-date planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of the development would outweigh the benefits; or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted (paragraph 14). Local plan policies that do not accord with the NPPF are now deemed to be “out-of-date”. The NPPF requires that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. In other words the closer the policies in the plan accord to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given.

100. Three dimensions of sustainability given in paragraph 7 are to be sought jointly: economic (supporting economy and ensuring land availability); social (providing housing, creating high quality environment with accessible local services); and environmental (contributing to, protecting and enhancing natural, built and historic environment) whilst paragraph 10 advises that plans and decisions need to take local circumstances into account, so they respond to the different opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas.

101. Para 17 sets out 12 core planning principles that include;

• proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made to identify and then meet the housing and other development of an area and respond positively to wider opportunities needs • ensuring that the local plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period • housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development • always seeking to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing occupiers of land • actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development ion locations which are or can be made sustainable

38 Other guidance: • para 23 seeks to ensure the vitality of town centres • Para. 32 advises that for traffic impact development should only be refused if cumulative impacts are severe. Sustainable modes of transport should be maximised. • Para. 47 requires local authorities to meet local needs for affordable and market housing, and identify a 5-year supply of housing. • Para. 49 states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites • Para. 56 – Requirement for good design. • Para. 58 – Policies and decisions should aim to ensure developments establish a strong sense of place; optimise the potential of the site; respond to local character and history; create safe and accessible environments; are visually attractive as result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping • Para. 60 – Policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes. It is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness • Para. 61 – Securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Planning decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural built and historic environment • Para 69 – Decisions should aim to achieve places which promote meetings between members of the community, safe and accessible environments and developments containing clear and legible pedestrian routes, high quality public space which encourages the active and continual use of public areas. • Para. 70 – Decisions should plan for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities etc. and ensure an integrated approach to the location of housing and other uses. • Para.73 – Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. Information gained from assessments should determine what open space, sports and recreational provision are needed. • Para. 103 – Ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere. • Para. 109 – Seeks to minimise impacts on biodiversity and protect unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution and remediating contaminated land where appropriate. • Para. 118 – Decisions should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. If significant harm cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused. If development is likely to have an adverse effect on a SSSI, an

39 exception should only be made where the benefits clearly outweigh the impacts. Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around development should be encouraged. Permission should be refused for proposals resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland unless the need for and benefits of development clearly outweigh the loss. Veteran tree protection advice. • Para. 120 – Decisions should ensure that sites are suitable for their new use taking into account ground conditions, any pollution from former activities and any pollution to general amenity. • Para. 121 – Ensure sites are suitable for their new use in terms of ground conditions, land stability, etc. • Para 123 – Avoid, mitigate and reduce noise which gives rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life. • Para. 128 – Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment, and where necessary a field evaluation. • Para 131- In determining applications, LPAs should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness • Para 132 - When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater weight should be. • Para. 192 – The right information is crucial to good decision- taking, particularly where formal assessments are required (such as EIA/HRA/FRA). • Para 196-7 indicate that planning law requires that planning applications are dealt with in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is such a material consideration and presumption of favourable development reaffirmed. • Para 203 - LPAs should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations. • Para 204 – Obligations should only be sought where they are necessary, directly related, related fairly and reasonably in scale and kind to the development. • Para 216 - Decision-takers can give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to the stage of preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies and the degree of consistency to the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF.

40 National Planning Practice Guidance

102. Where material, this guidance should be afforded weight in the consideration of planning applications.

• Determining a planning application – To the extent that development plan policies are material, a decision must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise. Where the plan is absent, silent or out of date, an application must be determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

• Travel Plans, transport assessment and statements in decision taking – supports the provision of Transport Assessments where a Local Planning Authority makes a judgement as to whether a proposal would generate significant amounts of movement.

• Design – Good quality design is an integral part of sustainable development. Achieving good design is about creating places, buildings or spaces that work well for everyone, look good, will last well and adapt for the needs of future generations. Good design responds in a practical and creative way to both the function an identity of a place. It puts land, water, drainage, energy, community, economic, infrastructure and other such resources to the best possible use over the long as well as the short term.

• Contamination – Local Planning Authorities need to be satisfied that they understand the contaminated condition of the site and that the development proposed is appropriate as a means of remediation and it has sufficient information to be confident that it will be able to grant permission in full at a later stage bearing in mind the need for the necessary remediation to be viable and practicable.

• Natural Environment – Local Planning Authorities should take into consideration various publications when taking biodiversity into account and should look for net gains. Sufficient information should be sought through ecological surveys etc.

• Planning Obligations – these should mitigate the impact of unacceptable development in order to make it acceptable. Obligations should be directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.

• Water Supply, wastewater and water quality – adequate water and wastewater infrastructure is needed to support sustainable development. Conditions can be used to ensure adequate infrastructure.

41 Development plan saved policies, emerging local plan policies and SPD’s

103. The key saved policies of the adopted local plan are:

• 1.CO - seeks to limit development in the countryside to a range of appropriate uses - the site adjoins the urban edge as defined on the proposals map. • 2.CO - planning permission will not be granted for development which would physically or visually diminish a strategic gap as identified on the proposals map • 18.CO – seeks to limit development which has an adverse effect on the character of the landscape • 20.CO – areas identified for landscape improvement (East of Stoneham Way) • 23.NC – protection of SINCs • 25.NC – promotion of biodiversity • 26.NC – protection of wildlife network • 28.ES – waste collection • 30.ES – noise sensitive development • 31.ES – residential development and noise • 32.ES– pollution control • 33.ES – air quality • 34.ES – reduction in greenhouse gases • 35.ES – contaminated land • 36.ES – lighting • 37.ES – energy efficiency objectives • 42.ES – development within watercourse catchment • 43.ES/44.ES – control of development within flood risk areas • 45.ES – Sustainable Drainage requirements • 59.BE - seeks to ensure the high quality design of new development, taking full and proper account of the context of the site including the character and appearance of the locality • 66.BE – information and communication technology • 71.H – mixed use development • 72.H – Density – minimum 35 dwellings per hectare unless local circumstances and context indicate otherwise and higher densities supported on sites close to good public transport and local facilities. • 74.H – Affordable housing.- on site requirement (target 35%) • 91.T – transport schemes • 92.T – Local transport proposals including (iv) bus partnerships; (v) Eastleigh cycle route network; and (vi) improved pedestrian routes to town centres. • 93.T – development of a park and ride site near junction 5 M27 supported in appropriate (undefined) location • 100.T – Requires development to be well served by sustainable forms of transport, to provide measures to minimize impact on

42 the network, minimize travel demand, provide a choice of transport modes • 101.T - development to provide contributions towards sustainable transport. • 102.T – Requires new development to provide safe accesses that do not have adverse environmental implications and are to adoptable standard. • 103.T – green travel plans • 104.T – parking provision • 134.TC town centre protection • 145.OS – playing field land and replacement criteria • 146.OS – green network of open space • 147.OS – open space requirements for new developments • 149.OS – enhancement of existing playing fields and provision of new facilities supported • 152.OS – enhancement of footpath network sought • 153.OS – improvements to bridleways • 165.TA – percent for art • 168.LB – archaeology • 174.LB – listed buildings and their settings protected • 177.LB – character, appearance, features or setting of historic parks or gardens protected • 186.IN – new community facilities • 190.IN – Infrastructure provision • 191.IN – Developer contributions

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan 2013 - The application site lies within a Minerals Safeguarding Area. Policy 15 allows development without prior extraction if criteria of policy met including inappropriateness of location or merits of development outweighing safeguarding of mineral.

Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029

104. The Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 was submitted for examination in July 2014. In December 2014, the Planning Inspector issued his preliminary conclusions on housing need, housing supply and economic growth and on 11 February 2015 his final report which recommended non-adoption as a result of the unsoundness identified to date. The findings of the Inspector in relation to the borough’s housing requirements currently undermine the Plan’s strategy and policies for guiding future development whilst more housing sites are needing to be added. The other proposed allocations and ‘Development Management’ policies remain untested.

105. Overall, the weight that can be attributed to the policies of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 is extremely limited. Nevertheless it represents the most recent statement of the Council’s development strategy for the borough which has undergone extensive testing and consultation, and as such will be used so far as possible to guide new development proposals. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF also advises that

43 from the day of publication local authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans. The most relevant policies are:

Site Specific Policies:

106. Policy E1, Land south of Chestnut Avenue Policy E1 refers to a strategic site at land south of Chestnut Avenue, Eastleigh. “An area of approximately 61 hectares of land south of Chestnut Avenue, as defined on the policies map, is allocated as a strategic location for development to include housing and associated facilities and services. Development will be subject to the approval by the Borough Council of a development brief including a masterplan which addresses the following requirements: i. the development provides approximately 1,100 dwellings of a range of type ,size and tenure to include specific provision to meet specialised housing needs including accommodation for older people; ii. the development provides a local centre, and other community facilities and services necessitated by the development including a primary school (subject to Local Education Authority requirements); iii. the development protects and where possible enhances nature conservation interests. In particular, the development shall not have an adverse impact on the nature conservation interests of adjoining sites but where necessary will buffer and contribute towards their enhanced management; iv. the height and density of buildings within the site responds to the topography of the site and the site’s visibility in the surrounding area; v. the key features of the historic landscape are considered sympathetically, including the land which forms part of the setting to The Shrine which should be retained and restored as necessary. The setting of listed buildings to the south of the site should not be adversely affected by development vi. the areas of woodland on the western and south-western boundaries of the site shall be retained as woodland and form part of the wider Forest Park proposals; vii. the playing fields are retained within the site unless the Council is satisfied that compensatory replacement can be provided which is of equal or greater benefit to the wider community than that which it replaces; viii. sufficient on-site open space is provided to meet the needs of the proposed development; ix. footpath and cycle links are provided across the site to connect Chestnut Avenue and Stoneham Lane to Home Wood and Kennel Copse (which form part of the proposed Forest Park) to the south and west; x. priority biodiversity links are maintained and enhanced, in particular the link between Lakeside County Park and the proposed Forest Park; xi. vehicular access to the site is provided from both Chestnut Avenue and close to the junction of Stoneham Lane and Stoneham Way with associated highway improvements to existing junctions;

44 xii. improvement of the junction between Chestnut Avenue and Stoneham Lane involving an increase in the size of the roundabout; xiii. financial contributions are made towards (amongst other things): a. the Forest Park proposals; b. an extension to the Lakeside Country Park; c. a new cycle & footpath along Stoneham Lane to connect the site to the city of Southampton; and d. any other off-site highway improvements necessary to serve the development; xiv. where necessary, the prior extraction of mineral resources before development; xv. a connection to the sewerage system and the water distribution system shall be provided at the nearest point of adequate capacity as advised by Southern Water, and access to the existing water main shall be secured for future maintenance and upsizing purposes; and xvi the development shall achieve BREEAM Communities excellent standard in accordance with policy DM2g.”

Policy E13 – land south of M27 Junction 5 “Approximately 18.3 ha of land south of the M27 junction 5, as defined on the policies map, is allocated for the development of playing fields and any ancillary facilities that are required to serve this use. Future development must not adversely affect the existing public right of way that runs alongside parts this site and Stoneham Way.”

Policy E14, Western extension to Lakeside Country Park, Eastleigh “An area of approximately 3.6 hectares of land west of Lakeside Country Park and east of Stoneham Lane as defined on the policies map is allocated for open space provided that: i. a new footway and cycle path is provided on the northern part of the site to connect Stoneham Lane to the Lakeside Country Park; and ii. the biodiversity interest of the site is protected and enhanced.”

Other policies: • S1 – promoting sustainable development • S2 – support for residential and other development including the presumption in favour of new development within the main built- up areas as defined by the urban edge - the site is adjacent to, but outside the urban edge • S3 – seeks to focus as much new housing development as possible within the existing urban area • S5 – the council will seek to achieve the provision of publicly accessible open space including amenity spaces • S8 – Footpath, cycleway, bridleway links supported • S9 – there is a presumption against new development in the countryside (all areas outside the urban edge). Development which physically or visually diminishes a countryside gap, or has an urbanising effect detrimental to the openness of the gap, the

45 character of the countryside or the separate identity of the adjoining settlements will not be permitted • S11/DM9 – the land adjoining the site is significant for nature conservation interest • S12 – Heritage assets including archaeology protected • DM1 – includes general criteria for development including that it should not have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of urban areas and the countryside and that proposals should take full account of the context of the site (character, appearance, compatible with adjoining uses, scale, materials, density, design etc.) • DM2 – sets out detailed requirements for development to be environmentally sustainable • DM4 – flood • DM5 – Sustainable surface water and watercourse management • DM7 – protection from pollution • DM9 – seeks to protect Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Sites of Interests for Nature Conservation from development which may have a direct or indirect adverse effect. Where the benefits of development clearly outweigh the adverse effects on the conservation value of the site, measures can be taken to mitigate or, if this is not possible to compensate for the adverse effects. • DM23 – Transport – general development criteria • DM24 – Parking criteria given • DM28 – Affordable housing requirement given • DM29 – Minimum internal space standards specified • DM33 – New and enhanced recreation and open space facilities requirements • DM37 – Funding infrastructure through planning obligations

Eastleigh Borough Council Supplementary Planning Documents

• Supplementary Planning Document: Quality Places (November 2011) • Supplementary Planning Document: Environmentally Sustainable Development (March 2009) (having regard to the Ministerial Statement 28 March 2015). • Supplementary Planning Document : Biodiversity (December 2009) • Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Parking Standards (January 2009) • Supplementary Planning Document: Planning Obligations (July 2008, updated 2010) • Supplementary Planning Document: Affordable Housing (July 2009) • Supplementary Planning Document: Accommodation for Older People and Those in Need of Care (May 2011)

46 Policy commentary

107. The above policies and guidance combine to form the criteria on which this application will be assessed.

Assessment of proposal: Development plan and / or legislative background

108. Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states “If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. The development plan in this case comprises the saved policies of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011, and the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (adopted October 2013). The Submitted Eastleigh Local Plan 2011- 2019 (comprising: the Revised Pre-submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029, published February 2014; and the Schedule of Proposed Minor Changes) was submitted to the Secretary of State in July 2014 and, following examination hearings in November 2014, the Inspector issued his final report on 11 February 2015. The final report recommended non-adoption on the basis of the plan being unsound. It can therefore be considered to have limited weight in the determination of this application.

109. The Inspector’s Report (11.2.15) did emphasise the importance of the need for housing delivery and he did also specifically address Habitats Regulations Matters relevant to the application site (see Forest Park text below).

110. In terms of “other material planning considerations”, the National Planning Policy Framework and Guidance constitute material considerations of significant weight.

The Principle of Development – Housing Need

111. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF paragraph 48), relevant policies contained within the existing EBLP (2001-2011) for the supply of housing cannot be considered up to date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. EBC cannot currently demonstrate a supply of deliverable housing sites within the 5 year period (2014-2019), with the latest housing supply figures (Dec 2014) demonstrating a 4.5 year supply at present.

112. The submitted Local Plan (2011 – 2029) has been found to be unsound by the Local Plan inspector on the grounds that insufficient housing land has been allocated. The publication of a new and revised plan is therefore subject to considerable delay and uncertainty in its progression towards submission to the Planning Inspectorate for

47 examination. Therefore, despite a specific policy within this submitted plan which allocates housing on this site (Policy E1), little weight can be afforded to this Plan in the consideration of this application.

113. The NPPF offers clear guidance for the assessment of planning applications in these circumstances. At the heart of decision taking should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development of which there are three dimensions, social, economic and environmental. For decision taking this means approving proposals that accord with the development plan without delay and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission for sustainable development unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF as a whole, or unless specific policies indicated that development should be restricted. The benefits of Plan- led strategic sites such as this application site versus unplanned ad hoc countryside sites, such as those currently being promoted in the southern part of the Borough, are evident in terms of the infrastructure and impact mitigation which can be delivered on properly planned comprehensive sites.

114. To boost the supply of housing as per NPPF paragraph 48, it is important to consider the deliverability of the proposed houses in terms of the actual contribution towards immediate housing need. The applicant envisages house builders commencing build in late 2016, with the delivery of 250 houses by the end of 2019. This scheme would make a significant contribution on the basis that housing is needed now and that to refuse the applications would contribute to the ever growing and urgent national housing need. Without this site coming forward within the projected timescales, the Borough’s housing land supply could drop to 4.3 years. If planning permission is granted on the basis of immediate housing need, it is important to encourage commencement of development rather than land banking. To this end, the applicants have agreed, in the event of a permission being granted, to a one year time limit rather than the usual three year limit for submission of the first reserved matters. This would encourage the early implementation of any permission and therefore a genuine contribution towards 5 year housing land supply.

The Principle of Development – prematurity

115. The Council will be unable to submit the new Local Plan for examination much before late 2016, with adoption now estimated as mid-2017. The prematurity issue is whether the decision should be made now on this site, or whether it should be refused so that it can be assessed as part of the overall local plan strategy and in the light of the objections and competing merits and demerits of other sites.

116. It may be appropriate to refuse a scheme that is so substantial, or where the cumulative effect would be so significant, that granting

48 permission could prejudice a future or draft local framework by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development. However, it is appropriate to take account of policies in emerging or draft local plans, with weight attached according to the stage of preparation or review. Should planning permission be refused on grounds of prematurity, the planning authority will need to demonstrate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the Local Plan process in the light of the Local Plan Inspector’s view that the Plan does not, in fact, provide for enough housing.

117. It is considered that as this site is included within the previously Submitted Local Plan it would be difficult to substantiate a refusal by reference to it prejudicing the Local Plan process. The site has been brought forward on the back of extensive assessments and consultations carried out during the drafting of the Plan, which offers support for development in this area as set out in policy E1. Furthermore the application seeks to deliver strategically planned rather than ad hoc housing with comprehensive community provisions. The lack of a 5 year housing land supply and the proposal’s impact upon that supply in terms of its delivery timetable and are also considered to be significant factors. The proposals are necessary to meet housing supply needs and in the circumstances the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the NPPF applies. It is recommended to Members that these considerations are sufficient to outweigh the prematurity argument.

The Principle of Development – other uses

118. Key objectives of both national and local planning policy are to encourage sustainable mixed use communities and reduce the need to travel. To address these objectives the development is proposed to incorporate a primary school to provide for the needs of the children within the new community; to provide a new local centre with shops, community building, day nursery, and offices which would assist in providing local jobs; to deliver public parkland and open space/play facilities on the main site and new, enhanced playing fields and open space at land south of Junction 5 and within an extension to Lakeside Country Park. All facilities would be linked with new and enhanced footway/cycleways including a new path adjacent to Stoneham Lane.

119. The proposed phasing ensures that the community facilities would be built at an early stage of the development to enable early social integration and absorption of the development into the area. Detailed reserved matters applications for all uses would be required and the timing of their implementation is proposed to be controlled through a phasing condition.

120. The principle of non-residential land uses in association with housing development are considered acceptable in planning terms and in

49 accordance with Development Plan policies and NPPF guidance relating to mixed uses, the minimisation of the need to travel and sustainable development, (adopted plan policies 15.CO, 68.BE and submitted plan policies E1, S1, S4, S5, S6, DM11, DM19, DM25, DM35).

Land Use Amount and Parameter Plans

121. For approval are parameter plans which illustrate a framework for development which would be evolved through the reserved matters applications: land use, density, building heights, public open space, access. These are accompanied by other supporting documents, including the Illustrative Masterplan.

Amount

122. The outline application must specify the amount of development proposed for consideration. The amount proposed is in accordance with Policy E1 requirements: 1100 dwellings, 3,200sqm care home, 1.3ha local centre site (to include indicative floor areas of 2,700sqm Class B1 employment/1,700sqm retail and other Class A2-5 uses)/450sqm day nursery/1400sqm school and 788sqm community building. Also, on land south of M27 a sports hub building of up to 1,750sqm.

123. The development boundary “red line” plan outlines the areas in which works are proposed for land south of Chestnut Avenue, land west of Lakeside, and land south and north of Junction 5 M27 This includes accords with the site allocation boundaries within the Submitted Local Plan.

124. The land use parameter plan indicates how the land is proposed to be used and distributed across the site. It shows:

• A central restored historic parkland between Avenue Park and Avenue Pond to the north and St Nicolas Church to the south, with the provision of a new landmark elderly accommodation building (use Class C2) • A local centre with day nursery (Use Class D1) and community building in the south eastern corner with a new Stoneham Way/Stoneham Lane junction. Local Centre uses to also include offices (Use Class B1), shops (Class A1) with flats above, and uses within Classes,A2, A3, A4 and A5 (financial and professional services, cafes and restaurants, drinking establishments, and hot food takeaway). • A 2.FE primary school site located to the north of the local centre • Residential dwellings (use Class C3) to the west and east of the central park with further accesses off Chestnut Avenue and Stoneham Lane.

50 • The retention of the existing Avenue Park and its car park and access off Chestnut Avenue • Retained public footpaths, hedgerows, ecology areas, ditches and trees (Avenue Pond is also retained but is outside the application site) • Areas for SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes) and woodland buffers • Sports pavilion and associated car parking, all weather pitch and lighting on land south of M27 in association with the playing pitch use • The land use parameter plan is also considered to be in accordance with adopted plan policies 23.NC, 26.NC, 71.H, 146.OS and submitted plan policies E1, E13, E14, S1, S9, DM1 and DM10.

125. The Residential Density Parameter Plan gives an indication of the scale of development and indicates the general location of the dwellings and their density. The parcels of land indicating differing densities are proposed divided up on the basis of site constraints, landscape character and proximity to local facilities. Generally, the low- medium density areas (30 - 35 dph) would be located closest to Home Wood on the eastern side; the medium density areas (35 – 40dph) are located within the central parts and those south of Chestnut Avenue; whilst the highest density (40 - 45 dph) residential development would be located at or north of the local centre and west of Stoneham Way.

126. The residential density proposals have evolved in a manner that have taken account of site constraints and opportunities, including the topography and noise environment, the need to create an active and sustainable local centre, the provision for a mix of 1-5 bedroom house types and sizes (to include potential for bungalows, houses and flats including smaller starter units, family housing and accommodation suitable for the elderly or less mobile) and for other factors including minimum house sizes, the Quality Places supplementary Planning Document, Affordable Housing SPD and parking standards. The parameter plan and associated Masterplan/Design and Access Statement and Development Brief is considered acceptable and in accordance with relevant NPPF guidance at paragraph 58 which seeks to establish a strong sense of place whilst optimising the site potential, and Development Plan policies on achieving sustainable communities ie. 72.H, (adopted plan) S1, DM1 and E1 (i) of the submitted plan.

127. The Building Heights Parameter Plan gives an indication of the scale of development and proposes generally the lowest density housing to be up to 2 storeys in height closest to the informal woodland edges. The school is also set at a maximum 2 storeys. Areas fronting the new parkland and at the Chestnut Avenue/Stoneham Lane corner are up to 3 storeys in height, whilst the development which may reach 4 storeys in parts is that at the local centre, including the offices, at land north of the local centre and in the centre of the site. The scale and massing of

51 the proposed development has been designed to respond to the site circumstances and to create a variety of built form. The predominant scale of buildings is within the 2-3 storeys range and buildings up to 4 storeys would only be used in specific locations to provide a better sense of place and focal buildings, eg on corners, giving legibility.

128. These building height parameters are considered acceptable and in accordance with NPPF guidance contained within paragraphs 56 and 58 which seek to ensure good design and development plan policies that seek to ensure an appropriate response to the specific site constraints and opportunities.

129. The Public Open Space Parameter Plan proposes the approach to the provision of a new parkland open space and other smaller areas of open space within the main site. These link with the retained Avenue Park and to the proposed Lakeside Country Park extension (approximately 3.6ha north of the Concorde Club). The new central park includes restoration of the former historic parkland and carriage drives with new avenue tree planting/retention of existing parkland trees and retention of the public footpaths. The open space strategy includes new play areas, footpaths and sustainable drainage/wetland features in addition to woodland edge and ecological mitigation areas. Three equipped children’s play areas would be provided across the site in addition to a teenage area.

130. Replacement sports pitches and ecological mitigation areas are proposed at Land south of Junction 5 M27 (approximately 18.3ha) and are accompanied by illustrative pitch provision plans. Land at Lower Hardmoor (north of Junction 5 ) is also included for temporary mitigation use if needed.

131. The landscaping strategy and use of the open space will contribute to differing characters areas, whilst new buffer and tree planting will create a series of green infrastructure corridors throughout the development framing development parcels and acting as wildlife corridors. The proposed open spaces have evolved in a logical manner and respond to site constraints, context analysis, stakeholder engagement and development plan policies and assessments and would therefore accord with guidance contained within the NPPF paragraph 73 which seeks to ensure access to high quality open spaces, paragraph 75 which seeks to protect public rights of way, saved adopted plan policy 147.OS and submitted plan policies E1(v, vii and viii), E13, E14D, M32 and DM33.

132. The Access Parameter Plan establishes the general principles of access and movement within the site. The strategy for vehicular access and movement includes a main spine road linking Stoneham Lane/Stoneham Way with Chestnut Avenue, the closure of the stretch of Stoneham Lane north of Stoneham Gate for vehicles and the introduction of a new roundabout junction and “straightened”

52 Stoneham Lane running northwards into the site. Two other principal access points are off Stoneham Lane further north and off Chestnut Avenue (west of Avenue Park). These details are considered within the highway section of this report.

133. The illustrative masterplan suggests a network of smaller residential streets within this structure although the exact determination of the layout is a detailed matter to be considered with later applications. The parameter plan also shows existing public rights of way. New public footway/cycleways are proposed to be provided along Stoneham Lane and through the Lakeside Country Park extension site.

134. The Development Phasing Plan identifies the likely order in which the site will be brought forward for development. The phasing plan provides the Council with assurances that the early delivery of key infrastructure and housing can be delivered.

135. In conclusion the parameter plans are the culmination of an assessment of the site, the stages of which are detailed within the Design and Access Statement. The site has been shown to have the capacity for up to the number of dwellings stated, together with the associated non-residential land uses in a form that is considered acceptable within the landscape. Parameter plans reduce uncertainty around the likely design approach and give comfort that future reserved matter applications on this site would be in accordance with an agreed strategy for the site.

Sustainable Development – three strands

Economic Sustainability

136. One of the core planning principles of the NPPF is to proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver, amongst other things, the homes that the country needs. As with any new housing, it’s would bring people into the area which would be a continuing economic benefit that would support growth in the local economy. A New Homes Bonus would also be paid and the development would create construction jobs. The development proposes employment land in the form of Class B1 offices in addition to the employment generated from other uses within the local centre and the care home. Furthermore, the Section 106 agreement requires funding for training schemes and/or starter units as well as an Employment and Skills Plan in respect of jobs created on the site. The Hampshire Chamber of Commerce has suggested that the employment use could be for a logistics building, but this would not be appropriate to the heritage and landscape environment of this site.

137. New infrastructure, including transport network improvements, the primary school and community infrastructure can also contribute towards economic sustainability.

53 138. The NPPF (para 131) states that the LPA should take account of the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities, including their economic viability.

139. The retail, community centre, sports building and office uses proposed are of sufficient size to consider whether there would be an impact on Eastleigh Town Centre’s vitality and viability as they are in an out of town location. With a condition limiting the size of individual units, these neighbourhood scale local centre uses are considered essential for the delivery of sustainable development with local facilities, and there is no indication that there would be an adverse impact on the town centre or other local centre. Indeed, use of the town centre should increase. Contributions have also been secured for town centre public realm improvements to assist in encouraging its use.

Social Sustainability

Housing mix, deliverability and affordable housing

140. The application is in outline and the supporting information confirms that a range of house types, sizes and tenures would be provided, including 35% affordable housing in accordance with Saved Policy 73.H of the adopted Local Plan and Policy DM35 of the Submitted Local Plan. The Council’s adopted Affordable Housing and Accommodation for the Elderly and Those in Need of Care SPDs are also material considerations, as the NPPF which aspires to “deliver a wide choice of high quality homes in inclusive and mixed communities to meet the needs of different people”.

141. The Head of Housing Services supports the application and its proposed delivery of up to 385 units for affordable rent or shared ownership. Each phase of development would be required to provide the full 35% sought by policy and the units would therefore be pepper- potted across the site. Such provision weighs heavily in favour of the scheme particularly in the light of very high numbers of urgent and priority cases on the Hampshire Homechoice waiting list for affordable housing.

142. Future reserved matter applications would be submitted early 2016 onwards, with first occupations mid -2017, assisting with the urgent housing needs within the Borough. Elderly housing in the form of the care home and provision of private housing to Lifetime Homes standards adds to the social sustainability of the development. Therefore the site would make a significant contribution to housing required for the Borough.

54 Health Provision

143. The proposed development equates to approximately 2,700 residents, which based on a maximum of 2,000 patients/GP generates an anticipated requirement for at least 1 GP plus primary care support services.

144. The Council are seeking to secure a strategic long term solution to health provision as part of the review of the submitted Local Plan for the period 2011 – 2036. However, in advance of this the Council are seeking contributions to mitigate the impact on the existing surgery at Romsey Road, through facilitating reconfiguration works which would enable increased capacity. This on the advice of West Hampshire Clinical Commissioning Group and the NHS who do not wish to see a new surgery at the site itself, preferring to focus on increasing the capacity of existing facilities. The applicant has agreed to the principle of such funding.

145. In addition, the community building on the site would accommodate an NHS-standard consulting room to be available for use by health providers, and the development’s provision for recreation assists in delivering a healthy community.

Community facilities

146. As a mixed use scheme the application provides for a community building which would accommodate a range of end users. This as a minimum would comprise of halls suitable for sports activities and use by a play group, office and meeting space, an NHS community consultation room for non-primary care treatment and storage. External space is also provided for the play group and other users. To assist with community development, the applicant has agreed to the principle of funding a community worker. This is a significant local benefit and helps deliver a sustainable development with a focus for the community, which along with the employment and local centre uses, would deliver a quality mixed use development in accordance with saved policy 71.H and submitted policy E1(ii). In addition, extensive public on-site open space is proposed with three areas of equipped play, a teenage facility, footpaths and cycle paths, and a Lakeside Country Park extension and new high standard playing pitches and facilities which are all of social benefit, as are the funded improvements to St Nicolas Church facilities.

Education

147. In accordance with submitted Policy E1 (ii) the land use plan makes provision for a new 2 form entry primary school. The development itself only generates the need for slightly less than a 1.5FE school (289/315 places) but the ability to expand in the future has been planned.

55 148. Following discussions with HCC Children’s Services, the applicants have committed to making a proportionate financial contribution for the construction of the primary school. HCC have confirmed that there is no requirement for provision for new secondary school places as there is surplus capacity in existing schools. Southampton City Council’s request for secondary school contributions cannot, therefore, be agreed.

Environmental Sustainability

Landscape Assessment

149. The site lies within the designated Strategic Gap between Southampton and Eastleigh and is therefore recognised as having a role in ensuring that the two settlements do not merge. The Council’s Landscape Character Assessment 2011 locates the site within the LCA Eastleigh Area 5 (Itchen Valley Sports Pitches) in respect of the land South of the M27 and Area 6 (North Stoneham Park) in respect of the land south of Chestnut Avenue. As described above, the Chestnut Avenue site is also of historic relevance and North Stoneham Park is on the Hampshire Historic Parks and Gardens List.

150. The application includes a comprehensive Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and landscape strategy. The most sensitive parts are identified as the retained Avenue Park, the historic parkland core area and the site for the Lakeside extension. Other areas are strongly contained by woodland and have lower sensitivity in landscape terms. The only part of the development site which is open to long views would be the higher land to the west although this does benefit from the backdrop of the mature woodland of Home Wood. The building height and density parameter plans respect this constraint and propose the lowest development in height and density on this part, together with enhanced tree screening. Careful design at the reserved matters stage would be necessary to avoid harm to long views.

151. The proposals envisage a multifunctional and integrated approach responding to the historical landscape character and the landscape setting and sensitivity, as well as the development criteria of Policy E1. A number of key landscape zones and public open spaces would provide:

• A large informal “green spine” parkland landscape stretching the full length of the site between Chestnut Avenue and Stoneham Lane. This would conserve and restore the core area of historical and landscape importance and include new avenue tree planting, public paths and restoration of the former carriage drive. In doing so, it addresses concerns raised regarding the loss of the historic landscape and makes clear that a large part is not in fact to be lost but retained and enhanced. Part of the strategy is also to reinstate a landmark building at the southern end of the site which would form part of the new

56 landscape whilst referencing the past. The key vista between the Shrine and the Church is retained, as are views of the former stables/coach house. • Retaining and enhancing other green areas enabling green infrastructure routes, to include the Lakeside Country Park extension and Home Wood and the retention of SINCs. • Retention and management of hedgerows, woodland edges and individual trees which also give biodiversity benefits • Sustainable drainage systems eg swales and retained watercourses, would also form part of the new landscape. • Development concentrated in the least sensitive areas. • A play strategy for the site • Appropriate and positive management of the retained landscape including the retention and safeguarding of veteran trees

152. The Illustrative Masterplan and Design and Access Statement and Development Brief develop these concepts further and will give guidance for any future reserved matters applications. The landscape is divided into distinct areas: • Chestnut Avenue Meadow (Avenue Park) SINC (retained with further management and enhancements including potentially opening up vistas between St Nicolas Church and the War Memorial); • Avenue Park – North (parkland maintaining 50m wide vista corridor and restoration of Lime/Sweet Chestnut avenue and historic carriage drive; heritage trail); • Avenue Park – South (parkland maintaining vista corridor; restoration of Lime/Sweet Chestnut avenue and carriage drive; road to be sunk using historic/Capability Brown ‘ha-ha’ principles; heritage trail; • Park Farm setting – development set back from historic features including Park Farm, walled garden and St Nicolas Church; restored historic carriage drive; retained vista to War Memorial; wetland meadow/SuDS; carriage drive restoration • Wetland Walk – green infrastructure and biodiversity link to Avenue Pond; boardwalks and enhanced wetland flora/habitats

153. The proposed built form development would, nevertheless, have a significant impact on the strategic gap, countryside and existing locally viewed landscape, contrary to adopted Policies 1.CO and 2.CO, which did not envisage this development and seek to retain the Strategic Gap in its entirety. There would be a significant visual effect for users of the public right of way crossing the site and also visual impact for residents in Chestnut Avenue. Locally designated Landscape Character Area 6 would inevitably be changed as a consequence of the development proposed.

154. However, the lack of housing supply policy now requires the reconsideration of Gaps and their roles and whether boundaries can be redrawn to enable planned future housing. Such assessment was undertaken to support the Submitted 2011-2029 Eastleigh Borough Local Plan with the conclusion that Gap objectives could still be

57 achieved on allocated sites even if they were to be developed. The residential site is not considered to be located within the most sensitive part of the large open gap and the M27 motorway in particular provides a visual and physical separation between Southampton and Eastleigh, which combined with the playing field uses off Stoneham Lane and Wide Lane, would still provide the perception of travelling between one settlement to another within a green landscape. Strengthening of existing mature vegetation boundaries along Chestnut Avenue and Stoneham Way would also assist. The LVIA offers a full assessment of the issue and the comprehensive proposals are landscape-led.

155. The proposed playing fields are an appropriate use within the Gap and landscape and even if ancillary buildings, artificial surfaces, car parking and floodlighting are proposed at the reserved matters stage, these are common to many playing pitch facilities in the locality and would not be likely to fundamentally undermine the objectives for retaining the green lung between Southampton and Eastleigh. Similarly, the proposals to extend Lakeside Country Park would not be intrusive and indeed could offer landscape improvements to the site as envisaged by Policy 20.CO of the adopted Local Plan.

156. Light pollution has also been considered as this can have an impact upon landscape character. Paragraph 125 of the NPPF states that good design should limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation interests. It is inevitable that the site will be illuminated at night changing the character of this rural location. It is important to try and minimise this where possible through careful design to ensure any light spillage is managed to be within acceptable limits. It is therefore recommended that should permission be granted, a condition is attached requiring details of lighting be submitted and approved before the commencement of each phase of development.

Protecting the most valuable agricultural land

157. The site consists of land that has an Agricultural Land Classification of Grade 4 or is not agricultural. Policy 4.CO of the adopted Local Plan was not saved, however submitted policy DM13 of the Submitted Local Plan resists the permanent loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a. The NPPF advises in paragraph 112 that "local authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land [and that] where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality". At grade 4, the site meets the requirement advocated within the NPPF and the submitted Local Plan policy.

58 Access, Parking and Highway Safety

158. Traffic impact and the capacity of the local network to accommodate the development’s traffic is one of the principal concerns relayed by local residents in their representations. The application was submitted with a detailed Transport Assessment (TA), subsequent to which an addendum has been provided which responds to consultee comments, redesigns the Chestnut Avenue site access/Nightingale Avenue junction to reduce queuing, redesigns the Stoneham Lane north and Stoneham Lane/Stoneham Way/Concorde Club accesses and extends the study area. The TA has taken in to account the cumulative impact of committed (permitted and proposed) development and overall its methodology, data and conclusions are now supported by the County as the Highway Authority.

159. As a mixed use development this will inherently minimise to a degree the need to travel by providing nearby, walkable facilities and amenities in accordance with the NPPF and local policies. Nevertheless the development would create additional vehicular journeys from each of the separate uses, although not all movements depart and arrive from a particular housing development simultaneously, whilst others will use non-car modes of travel to different destinations (in association with a Travel Plan). This affects the prediction of how certain junctions might fare in terms of capacity and decisions on improvements needed to be delivered. The Highways Authority (Hampshire County Council) and Highways England have been consulted on this application and have interrogated the applicant’s assumptions, calculations and predictions and sought amendments and reworking of the assessment where necessary. The current works to Junction 5 of the M27 have been taken into account and the final views of Highways England in respect of this junction will be reported.

160. Vehicular trip generation is usually assessed in terms of peak hours as this is when traffic has the most impact. A 25% bypass rate via the site link road for existing traffic movements between Stoneham Lane and Chestnut Avenue West has been allowed for. The traffic movements at the Chestnut Avenue site have been assessed at 755 movements (218 arrivals and 537 departures) in the morning peak hour and 788 movements (476 arrivals and 312 departures) in the evening peak hour. This accounts for all land uses on site. The TA has considered links and junctions that would experience an increase in traffic.

161. Specific junctions have then been modelled to assess their capacity in 2025 to deal with the increased traffic without causing unacceptable queues or delay. Improvement schemes have been proposed by the applicant on the basis of the proportion of traffic using a certain route and the capacity forecast. The County has reviewed the TA and the impacts and, following amendments including assessment of further junctions, has concluded this technical report is robust and the off-site highway works are suitable mitigation to address the traffic impact in

59 the year 2025, taking in to account this scheme and all other permitted schemes within this locality. A summary of the key junctions for which mitigation measures (either works or contributions) to reduce traffic delay are proposed are as follows:

• Stoneham Way/Chestnut Avenue roundabout – widening and additional lane on Chestnut Ave eastbound and Stoneham Way approaches and improvements to include pedestrian crossing facilities. • Stoneham Lane/Stoneham Way junction– realignment of road and upgrade to a four arm roundabout to include the Concorde Club access • Falkland Road/Tollgate roundabout – widening and additional lane on Chestnut Ave approach westbound • Chestnut Avenue/Nightingale signalised junction – extended to form four arm staggered signalized crossroads with pedestrian crossing phases • Southampton Road/Chestnut Avenue – right turn lane on Southampton Road/signalised junction • Derby Road/Passfield Avenue – widening and additional lane on Passfield Avenue approach • Asda roundabout – widening and additional lane on Chestnut Ave westbound approach and provisions for cyclists and pedestrians • Chestnut Avenue/Passfield Avenue roundabout – widening on all arms

162. The development is not required to mitigate for all expected traffic growth on the local network, but clearly must provide for improvements which address its own impacts. HCC Highways do not object to the principle of development and support the Transport Strategy proposed. Cumulative traffic impact must be severe (NPPF) if an application is to be refused for traffic congestion or highway safety reasons and with mitigation this would not be the case.

Sustainable Transport

163. The NPPF also seeks to maximise opportunities for sustainable (non- car) transport and there are opportunities with the proposed development to provide significant enhancements to the pedestrian and cycle network which would provide benefits for residents and employees beyond the site itself. Given the close proximity of the site to Eastleigh Town Centre and Chandlers Ford, walking and cycling are likely to materialise as significant modal options for commuters and Eastleigh Football Club supporters. The proposals would deliver significantly enhanced and safer routes with works including:

• A new footway/cycleway between Eastleigh and Southampton along Stoneham Lane and associated works within the

60 Southampton CC stretch (now permitted under the associated application O/15/75843) • A network of new footways and cycle routes across the site and linking to the local centre and wider network • A new footway/cycleway through the Lakeside extension site • Footway/cycleway link improvements between the site and Southampton Parkway station (within Lakeside Country Park) • Hut Hill cycle route works • Pedestrian crossing facilities • Crossing facility within Stoneham Lane between new playing pitch sites

164. In terms of the bus services, it is intended that the service for the Bluestar 2 route between Southampton, Eastleigh and Fair Oak would run alternately through the site and along the existing Stoneham Lane/Chestnut Avenue route. The additional patronage should enable the service frequency would be likely to change from 20 to15 minutes and HCC have required that this level of service is secured. There is also currently a Bluestar 5 one to two hourly service between Romsey and Fair Oak and the X5 Xelabus serving Southampton Airport Parkway-Stoneham Place-Chandlers Ford Business Park on Mondays to Fridays. New bus stops with shelters would be provided along the new internal link road and bus shelters would be added to the existing stops in Chestnut Avenue/Stoneham Lane.

165. The site is also located only 2km from Eastleigh railway station and 1.5km from Southampton Airport Parkway railway station.

166. Southampton City Council has requested that consideration be given to the closure of Stoneham Lane other than for access and pedestrian/cyclists but this would not be supported by the Highway Authority.

167. A Framework Travel Plan has been agreed with Hampshire Highways which aims to reduce the number of car driver trips generated by 10%, 5 years into development. This would be progressed through measures to promote walking and cycling, reduce single occupancy car trips, increase use of buses and trains, increase opportunities for smarter car use, encourage the use of local facilities and services, raise awareness of the Travel Plan and promote initiatives that reduce the need to travel. A framework for management and implementation of the Travel Plan is proposed and each phase of development would produce and implement its own bespoke Plan. A Travel Plan Co-ordinator would be retained until after final occupation of the new residential development. To ensure the best chance of success, a bond would be taken by the County returned to the developer in phases once targets were reached.

61 Access and parking

168. Finally, the access points in to the development are detailed matters under consideration with this application. The technical plans provided demonstrate the new roundabouts on Stoneham Way, together with the link road through the site, the closure and realignment of Stoneham Lane northern end, the accesses for the playing pitches in Stoneham Lane and the redesigned junction for the Chestnut Avenue/Nightingale/site access can be delivered without causing harm to highway safety.

169. It is considered that the above measures which include the improvements to junctions, the upgrade to existing, and proposed new, pedestrian/cycle routes, bus service infrastructure and the implementation of a travel plan would address each of the transport related impacts of the development. Such measures would facilitate vehicular access but also contribute towards sustainable access patterns. This is in accordance with the NPPF guidance on sustainable development, the encouragement to find solutions which reduce congestion and to exploit opportunities for sustainable transport modes and adopted plan policies 100.T, 101.T, 102.T, 103.T, 152.OS, 190.IN, 191.IN, and submitted plan policies S1, S6, S7, DM1, DM23, DM37, E1 and E13.

170. Detailed parking proposals would be a matter for reserved matters assessment, but the proposals do indicate that the quantum of development can be proposed whilst also complying with the adopted parking standards. There is clear potential for unplanned car parking to occur within the site from nearby business employees and Eastleigh Football Club supporters and controls through funded Traffic Regulation Orders are considered necessary.

Heritage Considerations

171. The heritage assessment submitted in support of the scheme identifies there are no nationally designated assets on or in close proximity to the site. There are the Grade II* St Nicolas Church, the Grade II Listed walled garden for the former North Stoneham House, the Grade II Listed Stoneham Rectory and Gate Piers, and three Grade II Listed dwellings in Chestnut Avenue. Stoneham Park is on the Hampshire County Council register for Historic Parks and Gardens.

172. The site’s cultural heritage history is summarised in paragraph 24 above. Heritage impacts and benefits need to be assessed and weighed up in the light of all the supporting Environmental Statement information, consultation responses and relevant planning policies and guidance.

173. St Nicolas Church is considered to have the highest sensitivity of the all the nearby Listed Buildings to development within its setting. It sits

62 within a visually enclosed churchyard when viewed from the application site, being largely screened by dense vegetation including woodland and mature trees between the site and the church, and only limited winter views are currently offered from parts of the site or out of the churchyard. Its wider setting has been compromised by development at Eastleigh Football Club immediately opposite and Wellington Sports Ground to the south. It does not have an immediately obvious visual relationship with the remnants of the original Stoneham Park Estate (the nearest being Park Farm) but the matter of the potential impact on the vista between the Church and Park Farm has been raised in concerns expressed by consultees, including Historic England (formerly English Heritage). The original concerns centred on the principle and impact of reintroducing a landmark building in the southern part of the site which would interrupt views between the church and Park Farm (former stables/coach house for the estate). The proposals have been amended to enhance the relationship of this key building with Park Farm and open up views of the former stables. Both the applicants and officers are firmly of the view that a new landmark building of quality and distinction would provide a key missing element to the park and the next stage in its evolution, as sought by Policy E1 and would not be a retrograde step. It is imperative that the building would need to be of the highest quality design and execution. However, the request from the Winchester Diocese to also locate the community building nearer the Church is not supported, in part because of the need to retain the remainder of this space and setting. The proposals are not considered to conflict with policies and NPPF advice for protecting the settings of Listed Buildings.

174. The key vista which must be protected is considered to be that between the church and the war memorial/Cricketer’s Hill and this would not only be retained but enhanced. Following on site discussions and the submission of an amended Illustrative Masterplan and further information to Heritage England have confirmed that they do not object and are supportive of the overall heritage benefits of the development. With the appropriate siting and set-backs, scale and design of the adjoining phases, it is not considered that the setting of the other local Listed Buildings, including the walled garden, would be harmed. Indeed, the development would provide funding for the restoration of the former stables/coach house, the restoration of the Listed garden walls and the restoration of the core historic parkland including the reinstated avenue of Chestnut and Lime trees and the historic carriage drive restoration. These are considered to be significant heritage benefits which should be balanced against any demonstrable impact on the setting of the Church and Park Farm. Important also is the opportunity for the public to be able to relate to the history of the site and to this end a comprehensive public arts scheme centred on its history would be delivered on the site, to include a heritage trail.

175. The evolution and changes to the parkland from medieval deer park to degraded former formal parkland which had been designed with

63 influences from Capability Brown is documented in the application submission and in other material. The Hampshire Gardens Trust has objected to the proposed development in principle and a specific response to their concerns has been prepared by the applicants which includes clarification on factual matters. There is no dispute that much of the former parkland would be lost to development, and the site cannot be developed without this loss. Again the negative impact of this loss must be weighed against the benefits including those outlined above. The former parkland to be lost has received no recent positive historic parkland management and much is currently in a variety of disaggregated and unsympathetic uses including the golf driving range, large car park and sports buildings. The central core of parkland to be retained, restored and positively managed has the highest parkland value with most historic interest. In essence, the choice is between continuing as existing but with no real prospect of restoration and the risk of further degradation, or allowing development which would in turn enable focused, high quality restoration and parkland retention of the principal, highest value part, with public access, whilst also delivering many other non-heritage related benefits.

176. Whilst there is clearly conflict with adopted policy 177.LB because the adopted plan did not envisage development of the site, the proposals would comply with Policy E1 which allows for development but seeks the retention and restoration of the central parkland area.

177. The ES concludes that there is potential for prehistoric, Roman, medieval and post-medieval archaeology within the boundaries of the site and that a programme of archaeological fieldwork will be required in order to fully assess this potential. HCC Archaeologist supports this approach and a suitably worded condition is proposed.

Playing Pitch replacements

178. Playing pitch and associated facilities proposals comprise the replacement of pitches at 18ha of land south of Junction 5 of the M27, combined with provisions at land at Hardmoor and Trojans (off Stoneham Lane within Test Valley area). In addition, further land is available at Lower Hardmoor (north of Junction 5 off Stoneham Lane) and east of Thomas Lewis Way. These would provide for replacement facilities for Stoneham FC, Doncaster Drove and Stoneham Park which are primarily used for football and cricket, and also for the additional sports provision requirements resulting from the new development. There is no requirement to replace the private golf-driving range.

179. The Playing Pitch works would be a Council-run project, funded by the applicants, and delivered in consultation with sports stakeholders including Sport England. The approach advocated is in accordance with the Council’s ‘Eastleigh Playing Pitch Strategy’ (October 2014). The focus will be on providing new, modern, high quality sports hub facilities in a more rational and cost-effective way than currently exists.

64 180. The outline application gives possible options for the configuration of pitches and facilities and allows for an ancillary building (toilets/changing facilities) on the eastern field, car parking, floodlighting, possible all-weather surfaces and hedgerow and tree retention, but the necessity for these would be established as the Council project proceeds and their full details would comprise part of the Reserved Matters submission. It is intended that the existing public right of way (Footpath 28) which crosses the eastern field between Stoneham Lane and Stoneham Way and then runs southwards through land east of Stoneham Way would be kept. There are no definitive public rights of way on land the west of Stoneham Lane but it is informally used by the public and it is not intended that this would cease, indeed a new footway/cycleway is proposed within it.

181. Test Valley Borough Council have granted outline permission (ref 15/00118OUTS) for the Hardmoor/Trojans element of the replacement strategy. This Council has also granted the linked outline permission (O/15/75843) for the critical footpath/cycleway link between the Chestnut Avenue site and Southampton along Stoneham Lane and which will run through this playing field site en route. This will enable pedestrians and cyclists to safely and sustainably access the new facilities in their new location. New vehicular access points off Stoneham Lane are proposed and safe crossing works included in the package of highway works for the development.

182. Sport England and the Head of Sport and Active Lifestyles are supportive of the quantum and outline detail of the sports pitch and facilities provision proposed, subject to Section 106 funding and delivery obligations. The timing of replacement sports provisions is important as existing clubs and users must not be left without appropriate alternative facilities as the move to the new sites proceeds, and this would be addressed in the playing pitch project programming and Section 106 agreement.

183. The approach to replacement and new sports provision accords with Policies E1 and E14 of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan which allow for appropriate reprovision at land South of Junction 5 M27. Ecology, visual impact and highway/public right of way considerations are addressed elsewhere in this report.

Public Open Space

184. The heritage and landscape-led proposals ensure that there is a significant over-provision of informal amenity public open space within the development site (approximately 10ha in excess of Development Plan policy requirements). This land includes a 3.6ha extension to Lakeside Country Park as well as the restored central parkland within the main site which adjoins Avenue Park. This is of significant public benefit. Section 106 requirements would ensure that the necessary

65 funding for works, management and play provision are also delivered. Because of the critical requirement to respect the heritage of the parkland area the provision for allotments within it has not, however, been included.

185. There are other smaller areas of local public open space identified which would serve the individual phases of development and combine with the surface water drainage (SUDS) works and ecological buffers needed. It is intended that the open space maintains and enhances biodiversity links through the site and woodland buffers, hedgerow and tree retention and new planting would be part of the approach to designing the open space.

New Forest mitigation: On site proposals, Forest Park and alternatives

186. The new public open space would link directly with the retained Avenue Park SINC to the north and Lakeside Country Park to the east, and is only a short walking distance from Fleming Park. The combined scale of this space for recreational use is such that it is considered appropriate mitigation for any possible impact from the development’s new residents on the New Forest Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area. This matter was raised by the Local Plan Inspector who sought appropriate mitigation when considering the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2011-2029) and representations made on Policy E1. In his Report of 11.2.15, when commenting on Habitats Regulations Assessment matters, he stated:

“87. The Screening Report (8.4.7) highlights the Forest Park and its linkage to Lakeside Country Park as an important element of the required mitigation in relation to the New Forest Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area. Policy E1 requires financial contributions to the Forest Park and an extension to Lakeside Country Park. But the Forest Park is largely outside the Borough boundary and its delivery is not directly within the control of the Council or developer. Test Valley Borough Council's Forest Park Implementation Framework October 2014 (GI14) includes Home Wood as part of the proposals for phase 1 in 2014-2019. Home Wood is adjacent to allocation E1, so there is a reasonable degree of alignment between the expectation to deliver part of the Forest Park and delivery of E1.

88. In order to meet the assumptions of the HRA, it is essential that the Plan highlights the purpose of the financial contribution to the Forest Park/Lakeside in relation to mitigation. It must also require alternative mitigation measures if an appropriate element of the Forest Park (eg Home Wood) has not been delivered in a timely manner in relation to the development of E1. Any such alternative mitigation must be of a suitable scale, quality and accessibility to achieve its purpose and its delivery closely linked to progress on the residential development. Accordingly, some additional wording along these lines would have been required in addition to the Council's suggestion in EBC/9, but

66 would not need to be as specific as that suggested by Hampshire Wildlife Trust.”

At the time of the Plan Examination it was suggested that the Forest Park initiative (which is a joint Local Authority initiative aiming to secure public access to large areas of woodland to the west largely beyond the Borough boundary but including Home Wood) would be the mitigation, but this is now not considered essential given the extensive on-site provision and the links it provides between existing open space. It would be possible to take long walks through countryside and parkland within and around the site without needing to access woodland elsewhere. However, to ensure that the New Forest impact matter is more than fully addressed and also to recognise the likely desire of new and existing residents to legitimately extend their walks to Home Wood or other nearby woodland, this element of the Forest Park provision has also been pursued. Home Wood is currently privately owned, managed by the Forestry Commission and informally used by the public. The Section 106 agreement would require two cascading options for additional public access to woodland:

- 1st Option: funding to enable more formal public access and management for public use of Home Wood should the Forestry Commission and landowners be agreeable to this. A 5 year time period for this agreement to be reached is recommended. - 2nd Option: if Option 1 not delivered, applicants to provide public access with management provisions to woodland to south of Home Wood adjoining development site (within Test Valley area) and provision for enhancements to other Country Park sites within Eastleigh Borough.

187. In addition, separate contributions towards enhancements to Fleming Park would be provided.

Ecological Interests

188. In addition to the New Forest SPA and SAC, the application site is within relatively close proximity to other European designated sites (also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect their 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 Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar, Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation, Emer Bog/Baddesley Common SAC/SSSI and the River Itchen SAC which are European sites. The sites are also designated as the Upper Hamble Estuary and Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the River Itchen SSSI. Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation within and near the application site include the Chestnut Avenue Meadow SINC, North Stoneham Park and Kennel Copse SINC, Home Wood SINC,

67 Stoneham Golf Course Remnant SINC and Fen to the West of Lakeside SINC.

189. The ecological considerations for the site are numerous and a large collection of ecological reports have been submitted with the application. These reports and surveys include site habitat, bats, badgers, dormice, water voles, otters, reptiles and winter birds. Information sought by a number of consultees on land South of Junction 5 M27 was submitted on 3 June following additional surveys.

190. The Borough’s ecologist has reviewed the evidence provided and is able to support the development subject to a number of conditions.

191. The evidence provided has demonstrated that the development can be accommodated and serviced without causing harm to the River Itchen or the Solent Complex (European sites) whilst through buffer zones and suitable drainage the relevant SINCs would not be detrimentally affected by the proposal. Indeed, further positive management is also proposed for these ecologically sensitive areas.

192. Bats and dormice are European protected species and both are found to be present or likely to be present on site. The Council when determining the application must have regard to the likelihood of Natural England granting a European Protected Species (EPS) licence in connection with development, Natural England must consider the three tests set out in sub-paragraphs (2)(e), (9)(a) and (9)(b) of the EU Habitats Directive

(1) Regulation 53(2)(e) states: a licence can be granted for the purposes of “preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment”. (2) Regulation 53(9)(a) states: the appropriate authority shall not grant a licence unless they are satisfied “that there is no satisfactory alternative”. (3) Regulation 53(9)(b) states: the appropriate authority shall not grant a licence unless they are satisfied “that the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.”

193. The Borough’s ecologist has advised that on the basis of the mitigation strategies provided within the ES the development meets the three degradation tests and Natural England would be likely to grant a licence. The bat roosts would not lost and trees with potential for roosts will be retained. Hedges for Dormice habitat will be protected and enhanced such that a favourable conservation status is secured.

194. As for nationally protected species (otters, water voles, reptiles, badgers, over wintering birds) conditions are recommended to ensure

68 habitats and foraging areas are retained and enhanced wherever possible and reptiles appropriately translocated where necessary. The area of land within the application site east of Stoneham Way is reserved for ecological mitigation purposes including the translocation of slowworms and a bird habitat. This can be achieved whilst also retaining the public right of way. The development provides for an extensive network of green infrastructure such that wildlife corridors are retained and enhanced.

195. All major trees, including veteran trees, are to be retained on site with the subsequent reserved matters applications ensuring development and infrastructure is adequately offset from the root zones. 15m buffers to woodland and watercourse buffers are required by condition.

196. Conditions and financial contribution are also required for a scheme for the removal of invasive species including Japanese Knotweed where it is present on the Lakeside extension land.

197. Overall, with the various mitigation and compensation strategies proposed for the disturbance to known protected species, for the spread of invasive species, for the impact upon water quality and to address the impact of increased recreational pressure on European sites, the proposals are considered to accord with the NPPF paragraph 118-120, saved plan policies 22.NC, 23.NC, 25. NC, 39.ES, submitted plan policy E1, S1 and DM9, and the Council’s Biodiversity SPD, together with the requirement for assessment under other legislation.

Noise and Vibration

198. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF states that decisions should avoid significant adverse noise impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development, impacts should be mitigated where possible, and that there should be a recognition that development will often create some noise. The application also needs to be considered against the adopted local plan saved policies 30.ES and 31.ES, and submitted plan policies DM1 and DM7. A detailed noise assessment was carried out by the applicants and concludes that, subject to appropriate setbacks from Stoneham Way and Chestnut Avenue and the M27 to the west, there are no existing noise or vibration impediments preventing the site from being developed. These have been included in the site constraints considerations which have informed the Illustrative Masterplan and will inform reserved matters applications.

199. The application is therefore considered in accordance with national guidance and adopted plan policies NRM10, 30.ES, 31.ES, and submitted plan policies DM1 and DM7 and acceptable in noise terms.

69 Air Quality

200. The NPPF states (para 124) policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards national objectives for pollutants, taking into account Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites. Adopted plan policies 32.ES and 33.ES and submitted plan policy DM7 require any impacts upon air quality to be assessed in this regard. There are also a number of European Directives that apply to air quality which the Air Quality Standards Regulations (2010) seeks to transpose and simplify.

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

202. The site is considered suitable for development in terms of existing air quality standards. The closest Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) is located approximately 1.2km from the development site at Leigh Road/Romsey Road/Southampton Road/Wide Lane. Based on the findings of the transport assessment the air quality report concludes that the impacts upon human health associated with the development traffic are either small or negligible and therefore no mitigation is necessary. The Head of Environmental Health does not disagree with the findings but has asked for further data and conditions. However, in recognition of the issue, a contribution towards local air quality monitoring and management would be secured via the planning obligations.

203. The application can be considered in accordance with the NPPF, adopted Development Plan policies 32.ES and 33.ES and submitted plan policy G9 and DM7.

Land Contamination

204. The NPPF and saved policy 35.ES requires sufficient information to be provided to adequately demonstrate that the land can and will be remediated to a standard suitable for the proposed end use and will ensure that the risk of pollution of controlled waters is minimised.

205. The Head of Housing and Environmental Health has advised the principle of development is acceptable but conditions are required for further investigations and controls and remediation if necessary. Similarly, consultees advising on water quality and ecology have sought conditions controlling quality of run-off.

70 Drainage and Flood Risk

206. In terms of the foul water strategy, it is known that there is currently inadequate capacity in the existing foul sewerage system for this development. The applicants have been aware of this fact from an early stage and have been in discussions with Southern Water regarding necessary infrastructure provisions and timing. Presently, the discharging of foul drainage by means of a new sewer from the site to the Chickenhall Eastleigh Wastewater Treatment Works (WTW) is the preferred option, although in the short term there may need to be temporary measures used until the planned investment to improve capacity at the WTW is delivered which may include the need to provide for greater biological headroom to control phosphates. The development cannot proceed unless and until suitable foul water disposal measures are agreed and conditions are recommended in this respect.

207. The application site lies largely within Flood Zone 1 which is considered to have little or no risk of flooding. There are two small areas in the south-eastern corner and on the eastern boundary in the vicinity of the existing watercourse that fall within Flood Zone 2. No residential development is proposed within these two areas and the submitted Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that the development would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere, subject to the implementation and management of a comprehensive Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDs). SuDS have been proposed for incorporation into the outline drainage design which would take the form of swales, wetland areas porous/permeable paving; and watercourse management. Provision for the long term management of the SUDS scheme would be secured via the S106.

208. To ensure the suitability of the water quality reaching sensitive receptors (River Itchen) is maintained the surface water runoff from potentially polluted areas (e.g. access roads, parking areas) will be discharged via source control measures. This effectively reduces total suspended solids, heavy metals and hydrocarbons from the runoff, providing water quality treatment. The detailed approval of a comprehensive Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) is recommended as a condition. However in principle it is considered that the surface water drainage could be accommodated to ensure no increase in run-off from the site above existing levels (the recent problem of flooding from run-off from the site onto Stoneham Way was caused by a damaged culvert which has now been rectified). The Environment Agency has been consulted on this aspect and, subject to the recommended conditions, has no objection to the proposals. A Construction Environment Management Plan is required to ensure pollutants as a result of the construction process do not enter the network of watercourses within or abutting the site.

71 209. Based on the information provided, and subject to Southern Water confirming sufficient biological headroom at the WTW, it has been established that the site accords with saved policies 41.ES, 42.ES, 45.ES and submitted policies E1, DM4 and DM5.

Sustainability Measures

210. NPPF guidance at paragraphs 95-99, adopted plan policies 34.ES, 37.ES, 38.ES, and submitted plan policies S1, DM2 and DM3 require development to be sustainable in terms of resource use, climate change, and energy use. The adopted Supplementary Planning Document Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD SPD) gives more specific guidance on requirements. The NPPF embodies sustainability in all its policies. In March 2015, a Ministerial Statement announced Code for Sustainable Homes would cease to be applied to new developments although the requirement to still achieve the Code’s level for energy and water remains. The requirements of the SPD still apply in full to non-residential developments. • All new homes will achieve a Level 4 rating for the Code for Sustainable Homes • The development will achieve a BREEAM Communities (2012) rating of ‘Excellent’; • A BREEAM ‘Excellent’ rating for the non-residential buildings greater than 500m2;

211. The submitted Sustainability Statement and Energy Statement advised the development will achieve a BREEAM Communities ‘Excellent’ rating and the pre-assessment form was provided in accordance with policy E1. The formal interim certification submission to BRE to ensure the scheme is “step 1” compliant has been made.

212. It is expected that the development would make use of a combination of fabric improvements and technologies such as photovoltaic panels. Whichever methods are used, the energy report offers reassurance that the development will meet national standards and the submitted plan requirements for any applications submitted prior to 2016. A planning condition will ensure these standards are met.

Minerals

213. Advice on minerals is contained with the adopted Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan 2013 (the site falls within a designated Minerals Safeguarding Area) and the NPPF. The prior extraction of minerals, where practicable and commercially feasible, is sought in advance of non-mineral development. HCC identified that the site could be of a size such that there could be mineral deposits of a commercial value but these are likely to be limited and deep down. A condition is recommended to require use of minerals for on-site construction process where feasible.

72 Third Party representation not addressed

• Inadequate consultation process – Whilst drafting the submitted Local Plan, within which this site is allocated for housing, extensive public exhibitions and consultations were held. As part of this planning application two public exhibitions were held by the applicant whilst the Council have advertised the development on 3 occasions through letters, site notices and press notices. There is a 3-day period between the committee and expiry of the latest press notice (on 3 July 2015) in respect of the 3 June amendments to the proposals and delegated authority in consultation with Members is sought to address any new and relevant matters which may be raised during this period. • Devaluation of property – this is not a material planning consideration • Unwanted increase in population from outside the area – it is appropriate to provide for housing growth and need • Alternative brownfield sites should be developed which could also provide the benefits being proposed – brownfield sites are being developed but these are only capable of meeting a small element of the Borough’s housing needs • Landowners are HCC and EBC and decision should be referred to higher body – the application will be referred to the Secretary of State to consider call-in. • Other development locally has been refused and a permission would be inconsistent with these decisions – each application must be considered on its own merits • Green Belt – the site does not fall within statutorily protected Green Belt and policies relating to this do not apply.

Planning obligation /considerations

214. In accordance with the guidance contained within the NPPF, Saved Policies 74.H, 101.T, 147.OS and 191.IN of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), Policies DM32 and DM37 of the Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029, the Council’s ‘Planning Obligations’ SPD and the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations, there is a requirement for developers’ contributions to ensure on and off-site provision for facilities and infrastructure made necessary by the development, or to mitigate against any increased need/pressure on existing facilities. This is in addition to the requisite on-site provision of affordable housing.

215. Following public consultation and pre-application discussions, negotiations regarding developer contributions and obligations have progressed and the Council are seeking the following be secured within the requisite Section 106 agreement:

73 • Provision of c800sqm on-site community building with car parking and provision for group (Highwood to build) • Community Development Worker funding • Primary school on site --provision of 2.0ha serviced land (HCC to purchase surplus) --contributions towards new school • Off-site Health Facilities contribution • On-site public open space/play provision and maintenance including 3no. children’s play areas and 1no. teenage area • Replacement and enhanced playing pitch provisions and associated works • On and off-site Highways works, including improvements to junctions; new footway/cycleway along Stoneham lane; on site bus provisions; street tree maintenance • Bus service provision at 15 minute frequency • Lakeside extension -land, and works and management contribution • Home Wood – public access and management of public use • Heritage improvements, including contributions to upgrades at St Nicolas Church; provision for Park Farm and walled garden restoration; carriage drive restoration • Public art contribution and provision on site • Town centre public realm enhancement contribution • Road traffic order funding • Fleming Park project funding • HWRC Chestnut Ave funding • Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project contribution • Avenue Park SINC works/management • Air Quality monitoring management contribution • Economic development: contribution towards start-up units off site and training bursaries • BREEAM Communities inc Post Occupancy Evaluation of Sustainability & Resident Satisfaction Survey Section 106 monitoring • Travel plan provision, monitoring and bond

• Onsite footway/cycleway provision • Lorry routing agreement • 35% on-site affordable housing • Unallocated parking spaces not to be sold to individual householders/ no private parking management schemes without Council consent • Sustainable drainage works and management plan. • Employment and Skills Plan • Private open space management plans • Phasing to be agreed • Open space completion prior to final 10% of dwellings in each phase • Remove all existing uses • Design code requirement • Provide 4% of private dwellings to Lifetime homes standard

74 • Construction management plan

216. Negotiations with have been undertaken with the view to ensuring that the development would be viable and deliverable.

217. The projects and measures identified for contribution expenditure will comply with the 3 tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy 2010, in that the monies would go towards the projects which are directly related to the development, and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development. The contributions would be index-linked to ensure the contributions rise in line with the costs of providing the identified projects/measures. The obligations sought are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and to meet the needs generated by the new residents and the potential impact on existing services and facilities.

Referral to the Secretary of State

218. In accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 should there be a resolution to grant outline permission for the development the application must be referred to the Secretary of State to decide whether he wishes to determine it himself following a public inquiry. The criteria for referral include development of local authority land and development of out of centre retail, office and leisure facilities. As the development also constitutes EIA development, the Secretary of State is also required to be notified of any resolution to permit under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011.

Conclusion

219. The residential and associated development proposals represent a departure from the development plan in that the site is outside of the settlement boundary and within Strategic Gap and on land identified as an historic parkland. In terms of the saved policies of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), the policies relating to housing provision are clearly time-expired. The submitted Local Plan, due to its unadopted status, must be afforded little weight in the consideration of the proposals, although Policy E1 allocates the site for housing and has undergone public consultation and substantial testing as required by the NPPF when advocating plan-led development.

220. Eastleigh Borough Council has a shortfall in its 5 year housing land supply and with a current inability to demonstrate such a supply, it is appropriate to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development unless the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the NPPF guidance. Because of this need for planned housing and the site’s

75 strategic housing designation it is considered appropriate to consider the proposals ahead of the adoption of the new EBLP.

221. As set out above, the edge of town location and comprehensive mixed use nature of the scheme along with new pedestrian and cycleway links means that the application scheme represents an accessible and sustainable proposal. In terms of the three dimensions of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF, the development would fulfil an economic role by providing employment opportunities on and off-site; a social role by providing clearly needed market and affordable housing together with social, community and extensive recreational facilities. There are both clear heritage impacts and benefits but when assessed as a whole the development fulfils an appropriate and satisfactory environmental role.

222. Impacts can be summarised as:

• Strategic Gap • Loss of countryside uses • Loss of historic landscape area

223. Benefits can be summarised as

• Provision of housing to meet needs within 5 years • Affordable housing provision • Restored historic parkland and heritage assets • Primary school provisions • Higher quality sports facilities • Community and recreational facilities for wide public use including extension to Lakeside Country Park • Green infrastructure • Extensive footway/cycleway provisions • Local employment opportunities

224. There are a number of matters, assessed above, which are considered essentially neutral in the balancing exercise required to be carried out in the final consideration of the proposals. This is due to mitigation strategies embodied within the application which can be controlled by either planning conditions, Section 106 obligations or within the consideration given to reserved matters applications. Such matters include highway works, ecology, trees, flood risk, archaeology, air quality and noise.

225. In conclusion therefore, although the NPPF endorses a plan led system, there is no adopted development plan that identifies sufficient housing to meet the clear housing land shortfall. National guidance encourages every effort to identify and then meet the housing needs of an area. The proposals would make a significant contribution towards meeting that need. Waiting for a new Local Plan would not accord with national policy. Overall it is considered that the proposals represent

76 sustainable development and the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole.

226. The recommendation is therefore to grant outline permission subject to the referral of the planning application to the Secretary of State; the resolution of any new issues not addressed by the report and any updates to Committee raised before 3 July 2015 (the expiry of the press notice 21-day period in respect of the amendments to the proposals), the completion of the Section 106 agreement in accordance with the above Heads of Terms and the conditions as set out within the report and as may be updated.

77 © Crown copyright and database rights (2015) Ordnance Survey (LA100019622)

Title: Scale: 1:10000 Map Ref: SU4317 Date: 04/06/2015

78