BURSLEDON, HAMBLE-LE-RICE & HOUND Thursday 24 November 2016
Case Officer Kitty Budden
SITE: Land to the rear of Orchard Lodge, Windmill Lane, Bursledon, Southampton, Hampshire, SO31 8BG
Ref. C/16/77959 Received: 02/02/2016 (07/11/2016)
APPLICANT: Foreman Homes
PROPOSAL: Reserved matters application: Residential development of 29no. dwellings with associated parking and public open space (landscape to be considered).
Addendum to Orchard Lodge Committee Report, dated 3rd November 2016
Introduction:
On the 3rd November 2016, the reserved matters planning application for landscaping in relation to development comprising of 29no. dwellings with associated parking and public open space was considered at Bursledon, Hamble-le-Rice and Hound Local Area Committee.
Following Members discussion at this committee, the application was deferred for additional information to be submitted in relation to:
Land Contamination; Construction of Retaining Walls; Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS).
This summary report comprises an addendum to the Committee Report of the 3rd November 2016 and should be read in conjunction with that Report.
The principle of development was previously established through the granting of outline planning permission (ref. C/14/74932), at which time the matters of access, layout, appearance and scale were also resolved. The only matter for determination as part of this application is that of landscaping.
Legislative Background:
Under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (and previous legislation which this supersedes), a planning application must be accompanied by ‘any other plans, drawings and information necessary to describe the development which is the subject of the application’ (Part 3, Section 7). This places the responsibility on the applicant/agent to provide all the necessary information, including technical reports covering matters of land contamination, ground conditions, drainage, ecology, etc. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) uses this information to properly assess the submitted scheme and determine the application. During the course of an application, additional information can be sought if the LPA considers this necessary/appropriate. Should further matters be raised by consultees during the application process, the LPA will consider whether further information is required at that stage, prior to determination of the application, or whether conditions can be imposed to ensure these matters are adequately addressed following the approval of the scheme.
When considering a planning application, the LPA is required to determine it in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Sections 70(2) and 79(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). The Development Plan in this case comprises the saved policies of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011.
Other ‘material considerations’ of significant weight include the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). Paragraph 203 of the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to ‘consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions’ and paragraph 206 requires that conditions should only be imposed ‘where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.’
Paragraph 187 of the NPPF requires LPAs to ‘look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.’
Matters to be considered:
Land Contamination
As set out in the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 ‘(w)here a development site is known or suspected to be affected by contamination or a sensitive ‘end use’ is proposed then the responsibility lies with the applicant to demonstrate that the land can and will be made suitable for the proposed use. This means that the applicant must provide sufficient information to satisfy the Council regarding the characterisation of the site that there is no unacceptable short or long term risk of harm to human health, the environment, property and/or pollution of controlled waters.’
The information submitted as part of a planning application (or to discharge a planning condition) is considered in light of the Saved Policy 35.ES of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 which states: ‘Planning permission will only be granted on land which is known or suspected to be contaminated if the applicant can provide sufficient information 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.’
In addition, it is also necessary to take the relevant paragraphs within the NPPF into account as this constitutes a material planning consideration.
Paragraph 120 of the NPPF states:
‘To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account. Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.’
Paragraph 121 requires planning decision to ensure that:
‘The site is suitable for its new use taking account of ground conditions and land instability, including from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, pollution arising from previous uses and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation or impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation.’
During the course of the outline application associated with the application currently for determination, the need for information in relation to possible land contamination issues was highlighted to the developer. SOILS Ltd. were appointed to carry out initial investigations and some information was provided to the LPA immediately prior to the Local Area Committee meeting on the 25th June 2015. At this point the case officer recommended that full investigations could be secured through the use of planning conditions. Members accepted this approach and planning permission was subsequently issued.
The relevant planning condition was worded as follows and requires the land contamination matter to be resolved to the satisfaction of the Council’s Environmental Health unit and discharged by the LPA:
‘(22) No work shall start on site until the following has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
(a) Desk Study documenting all the previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Reports Nos.1 and 2, and BS10175:2011 Investigation of potentially contaminated sites Code of Practice, and, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority;
(b) A site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the desk study in accordance with BS10175:2001, and, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority;
(c) A detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid the risk from contaminants and/or gases when the site is developed and proposals for future maintenance and monitoring. Such a scheme shall include nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works. Reason: To minimise the risk from land contamination for public safety.’
As part of the discharge of condition for the outline application, and to support the reserved matters application for landscaping, further investigation has been carried out and additional information has been provided.
This information was reviewed and the Council’s Environmental Health officers confirmed that, while some additional information was required in relation to ground gas, they were satisfied this could be addressed and dealt with under the condition imposed on the outline permission and did not impact the landscape scheme under consideration as part of this reserved matters application.
An updated report has subsequently been submitted to the LPA and any further updates will be provided to Members at the Local Area Committee meeting.
In brief, the following contamination assessment project works were undertaken on the 23rd June 2015, between the 2nd and 17th November 2015 and on the 14th April 2016, and comprised:
10No. windowless sampler boreholes; 10No. dynamic probes; 5No. dual purpose groundwater/gas monitoring wells; 3No. machine excavated trial pits; 5No cable percussive boreholes; Soil-Gas and groundwater monitoring; Geotechnical laboratory testing; Contamination laboratory testing.
The depth of the trial holes varied between 3-20m below ground level (bgl). The following soils were identified:
Soil Type Composition No. of trial Depths found/ Additional holes m bgl Information encountered in Topsoil Soft dark clayey 9 out of 18 0.10-0.30 n/a sandy Silt with fine rootlets Made Very soft to soft 18 out of 18 0.30-5.00 No visual or Ground dark grey brown olfactory sandy clayey contamination gravelly silt. indicators Gravel was fine to found. medium angular brick fragments. Wittering Thinly 12 out of 18 6.40-12.90 Immediately Formation interbedded underlying the clayey medium Topsoil or sands and sandy Made Ground silty clays. The sands were occasionally ferruginous stained. London Grey stiff silty 5 out of 18 Present to the Immediately Clay sandy Clay with maximum underlying the Formation occasional depth of the soils of the pockets of clayey investigation, Wittering sand. 20.00m bgl Formation
Roots were also encountered in each of the eighteen trial holes at varying depths.
The Phase I Desk Study undertaken by Soils Limited (report ref: 15048/DS dated June 2015) for the area known as Orchard Lodge identified a medium to high risk of ground contamination from an onsite fuel oil spill in 1997, Made Ground from the historical redevelopment and the presence of a historical landfill. Furthermore, the Phase I Desk Study identified a high risk of soil gas associated with the former landfill onsite, and a medium risk associated with an onsite fuel oil spill. Areas of ground which have reportedly struggled to sustain plant life since the land filling during the 80’s were highlighted by concerned local residents and subsequently targeted by machine excavated trial pits. The Phase II Ground Investigation’s did not identify any additional potential sources of contamination and therefore the preliminary Conceptual Site Model’s did not require revision.
The Investigation into the area of historic landfilling revealed soft Made Ground to depths of up to 5m. The soils were found to comprise largely natural clay rich soil with clasts of organic rich layers, ash and charcoal, tree stumps, wooden fence posts and brick/concrete inclusions, however the vast majority of the fill was natural clay which appeared to be reworked Wittering Formation. In one location an old topsoil horizon was encountered at a depth of 3.20m bgl with natural soils underlying confirming that land filling has taken place.
Following the results of the intrusive investigation, chemical laboratory testing and the soil-gas risk assessments the contamination risks can be summarised as follows:
Soil: One of the samples tested identified Asbestos Containing Soil within the sample from WS9 at 0.40m bgl. The Asbestos Containing Material was determined to comprise Asbestos chrysotile fibres. A subsequent Asbestos Quantification was commissioned on the sample, which showed that any asbestos present in the sample was below the detection level of the quantification test, <0.001%.
Groundwater: The soil sample testing identified no substances present in quantities that posed a risk to the groundwater receptor, in addition to this no consistent body of water was encountered therefore there was no risk to controlled waters. Soil Gas: The soil gas risk assessments demonstrated that there was a risk to the human health receptor from soil-gas and that protection measures in line with Characteristic gas situation 2/Amber 1 will be required.
In response to the identified risks, the remedial objectives should sever any source- pathway-receptor pollutant linkages that have been established by the Conceptual Site Model. Once this has been achieved, by whatever means, there can theoretically be no risk to the critical receptors.
A review of the revised Conceptual Site Model in this case, showed that there was still a risk to the human health receptor from soil gas and from asbestos containing soil therefore remedial measures are required.
The updated report proposed the following means of remediation:
Remedial Objective One
“Soil Gas Protection Measures must be installed and certified to comply with Characteristic Gas Situation 2 / NHBC Traffic Light System Amber 1.”
The developer has proposed the use of a beam and block foundation construction utilising a 2000 gauge membrane.
Remedial Objective Two
“Asbestos must be removed from the Topsoil placed within the proposed residential back gardens and public open spaces to a depth of 600mm.”
Where encountered, asbestos containing material will be separated and disposed of in an appropriate manner to a licensed waste facility. Formation level and Topsoil validation testing would be required to prove that the Asbestos has been removed in the private and public soft landscaped areas to a depth of at least 600mm.
In addition, a watching brief discovery strategy is also proposed on site to ensure that any contamination undiscovered at the time of reporting (November 2016) is appropriately dealt with. It is suggested that an additional condition is imposed, should planning permission be granted, to ensure this takes place.
Any imported topsoil will be fit for purpose and supplied with traceable chemical laboratory test certificates in addition to testing once on site.
The results of all formation level and Topsoil validation testing will be presented within a summary validation report to the LPA upon completion, as required as part of planning condition 22 imposed on the outline consent.
Construction of Retaining Walls
As shown on the submitted, revised Landscape General Arrangement Plan and the relevant External Works Layout plans, retaining walls are proposed in the following locations:
Side boundary to Plot 16 adjacent parking area and rear boundary of parking area; Side boundary between Plots 17-18 and 29; Side boundary between Plots 18 and 19; Side boundaries between Plots 25-27; Part of southern edge of road, opposite Plot 22.
The details of these walls are shown on the Retaining Wall Details plans, Sheets 1-4 and the relationship of these walls to the surrounding structures and ground levels are shown on the Illustrative Sections drawings. The maximum height of the majority of these walls is 1.0m; the exception being the retaining wall to the rear of the garages associated with plots 10-15, where the retaining wall is 2.53m and screened by the garages themselves.
The detail and method of construction for retaining walls is influenced by individual site circumstances such as ground composition and condition, and the length and height of the structure; and designed by a Structural Engineer following a site survey.
A standard retaining wall design has been provided comprising:
Strip foundation to an appropriate depth and size; Blockwork, concrete infill with mesh fabric to required height, with facing brickwork and capping to match the architectural detail on the associated dwellings, tied back into the wall; Backfill of free-draining granular material behind the wall, with geotextile fabric; Weepholes and expansion joints at appropriate spacings.
A crib wall construction will be used to retain the ground between plots 17-18 and 29, and along the side garden boundary of plot 16. This structure comprises interlocking timber components that create a ‘cage’ that is filled with a graded stone.
Similarly, Road 1, the main road which runs close to the edge of the development, will also retained using a crib wall construction of the same design, with contiguous bored piling (piles that are closely bored so as to almost touch) at each end of the approx. 62m length of the retaining structure.
Additional information regarding the actual construction method is to be provided and Members will be further updated at the Local Area Committee meeting.
Sustainable Drainage Systems
Approaches to managing surface water that take account of water quantity (flooding), water quality (pollution), biodiversity and amenity are collectively referred to as Sustainable Drainage Systems/Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, or SuDS and are the preferred approach to managing rainfall from hard surfaces.
There are many different SuDS features that can be used depending on site constraints, for example, ponds, wetlands, or shallow ditches known as swales.
The primary purpose of SuDS is to mimic the natural drainage of the site prior to development. This is achieved by capturing rainfall, allowing as much as possible to evaporate or soak into the ground close to where it fell, then conveying the rest to the nearest watercourse to be released at the same rate and volumes as prior to development. Along the way any pollutants, such as metals and hydrocarbons from roads and car parks, are reduced. Water entering a local watercourse is therefore cleaner and does not harm wildlife habitats.
There is a plethora of information in relation to the design and management of SuDS with the primary source of guidance the updated CIRIA SuDS Manual. This comprehensive manual covers a wide range of matters including designing for specific site conditions (such as contaminated soils or groundwater) and considers health and safety issues.
When outline planning permission was granted for this development, a planning condition was secured on the outline application to ensure an appropriate drainage strategy for the site, as follows: (8) 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 strategy shall include full details of any basins, swales and other features, a planting and landscaping strategy, safety measures and a management and maintenance plan. The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including the 100 year (30% climate change allowance) critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, both on and off site.
Eastleigh Borough Council seeks to secure naturalised SuDS utilising three methods of filtration in sequence to ensure the surface water is clean when it leaves the site. Revisions to the proposed SuDS design have been made to take account of comments from the Council’s Biodiversity Officer and an update will be provided to Members at the Local Area Committee meeting.
No land contamination issues have been identified that have implications for the design of SuDS on this site.
A range of features have been proposed for this site which include wet and dry swales with check dams and attenuation ponds.
Swales are typically broad, shallow, flat bottomed, vegetated open channels designed to convey, treat and attenuate surface water runoff. They are designed to slow the water, facilitating sedimentation, filtration through the root zone and soil matrix, evapotranspiration and infiltration into the underlying soil. Check dams can be installed across the flow path, that temporarily pond runoff to increase pollution retention and infiltration and further decrease flow velocity which is particularly useful for sites with steeper gradients.
A dry swale is a vegetated swale designed to include a filter bed of prepared soil that overlays an underdrain system. The underdrain provides additional treatment and conveyance capacity beneath the base of the swale and prevents waterlogging.
A wet swale is equivalent to the dry conveyance swale but is designed specifically to deliver wet and/or marshy conditions in the base and uses wetland planting.
Section 17.6 of the CIRIA discusses the design of swales in relation to Amenity Design. It states:
‘Swales are generally shallow surface features that do not present significant risk or danger to the health and safety of the general public. Any residual risks can be mitigated through the design of shallow side slopes and shallow flow depths.’
In relation to ponds, the CIRIA guidance discusses the benefits that these features can provide to an area in amenity and biodiversity terms and provides advice in relation to health and safety. For ponds as proposed on this site, the guidance advises the use of a shallow ‘safety bench’ and opportunities for surveillance, both of which can be achieved here.
SuDS do require regular maintenance (as with a conventional closed drainage system). For this development, maintenance of the SuDS features will be carried out by the management company.
Conclusion:
Members requested additional information in relation to land contamination, construction of retaining walls and SuDS to ensure these can be appropriately and safely dealt with on this site. This report has summarised the information that has been submitted to discharge the relevant conditions imposed on the outline planning consent and revised to take account of additional investigation and consultee comments.
It is considered that the information that has been provided to date has demonstrated that these matters can be appropriately addressed and do not materially impact the outstanding reserved matter, that being landscaping. It is therefore recommended that the reserved matters application for landscaping is approved, as set out in the Committee Report of the 3rd November, with the following amendments:
Condition (2):
Revisions to plan numbers as follows:
(2) The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the following plans numbered: 14.07.01 Rev A; 14.071.05; 14.071.15; 14.071.06 Rev C; DD124L01 Rev E; DD124L02 Rev D; DD124L03 Rev D; DD124.D01; DD124.D02; 15-2601-4121 P5; 15-2601-4122 P5; 15-2601-4123 P5; 15-2601-4124 P5, Check Dam detail. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
The addition of the following condition:
Condition (4):
If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an addendum to the Method Statement. This addendum to the Method Statement must detail how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. Reason: To minimise the risk of land contamination for the safety of future occupiers.
APPENDIX: LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE, THURSDAY 03 NOVEMBER 2016.
CONDITIONS AND REASONS:
(1) The development hereby permitted shall comply with the conditions imposed on the grant of the outline planning permission reference C/14/74932 which was permitted on 28 January 2016. Reason: To secure properly planned development.
(2) The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the following plans numbered: 14.07.01 Rev A; 14.071.05; 14.071.15; DD124L01 Rev D; DD124L02 Rev C; DD124L03 Rev C; DD124L04; DD124L05; DD124L06; 14.071.06 Rev C; DD124.D01; 15-2601-4121 P3; 15-2601-4122 P3; 15-2601-4123 P3; 15-2601- 4124 P2. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
(3) The approved planting along the southern boundary of the informal open space within the Bursledon Windmill visual zone shall be retained at a height of no more than 600mm. Reason: In the interests of safety.
Note to Applicant: In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Eastleigh Borough Council takes a positive approach to the handling of development proposals so as to achieve, whenever possible, a positive outcome and to ensure all proposals are dealt with in a timely manner.
Report:
This application has been referred to Committee because it is a major development which is controversial and the outline application was determined by the Local Area Committee.
The site and its surroundings
The site is formed of part of the garden area of Orchard Lodge and a large area of grazing land to the east. The applicant owns the land to the north east with the whole parcel sitting below, and wrapping around, the Bursledon Windmill and its associated structures. Bursledon Windmill is Grade II* Listed and is the principal structure in the Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area, which incorporates the majority of the application site.
The site is a largely rectangular parcel of land which served as an area of landfill originally associated with the building of the motorway and subsequently subject to unauthorised tipping by the site owner of primarily building waste. The site is presently adjoined by private gardens, fields and woodland, although there is a current planning application for residential development to the east which has yet to be determined (planning reference O/16/78514). There are significant level changes across the site with the steepest land towards the eastern section of the site, sloping down to the south.
A stream runs along the southern boundary which feeds into the River Hamble. The stream sits below the ground level of the site and the gardens which run along the opposite bank. The southern boundary is defined by a mature tree line and scrub, with a mixture of trees and vegetation along eastern and northern boundaries. A small SINC (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation) lies to the east of the southeast corner of the development site, protected as woodland where there is a significant element of ancient semi-natural woodland surviving. The site itself is comprised of tussocky grassland with a mature and attractive Oak tree in the centre.
Access to the site is provided via the existing vehicle access to Orchard Lodge which egresses onto Windmill Lane. Windmill Lane runs northwest of the site, forming the boundary to the Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area, and is divided into two distinctive sub characters. On the west side of the lane, outside the Conservation Area, is a row of traditional, semi-detached, interwar houses. On the east side, there is a semi-rural character consisting of a small collection of detached dwellings set in irregular plots interspersed with tree planting. A small number of these properties are included within the designated Conservation Area.
To the south, Windmill Lane meets the A27 (Providence Hill), a major thoroughfare through this area, separated from the application site by a relatively narrow area of land to the south of the stream. Due to topography, this road sits higher than southern boundary of the site.
In general, the site is located within good proximity of local services, including the Tesco store to the west and Lowford Village Centre, and is well served by public transport.
Relevant planning history and description of application
In 2014, an application for 4 detached dwellings on a section of the site to the west was refused and later dismissed at appeal (ref. F/14/74037). While affording substantial weight to the need for housing, the Inspector considered the minimal contribution 4 dwellings would make to the housing supply not to outweigh the impact on the Conservation Area and Grade II* Listed Building.
An outline planning application for up to 29 dwellings was subsequently submitted encompassing the wider area of land (ref. C/14/74932). When initially submitted, the application sought outline permission with Access as the sole matter to be considered. Due to the designation of the majority of the site as Conservation Area and the proximity to the Listed windmill, additional detailed information was later submitted by the applicant to enable the impact of the proposal to be properly assessed. At this point, the scope of the application was expanded to permit the additional matters of Layout, Appearance and Scale to be considered.
This outline application was considered by Members at Local Area Committee in June 2015. Members determined that the contribution of 29 dwellings to the housing supply combined with benefits delivered through the securing of Public Open Space to the north/ northeast and ecological enhancements were sufficient to tip the balance in favour of development and therefore resolved to grant planning permission, subject to completion of a S106 legal agreement and amendments to planning conditions. The decision for this application was subsequently issued on 28th January 2016.
The reserved matters application currently under consideration solely seeks planning permission for the remaining reserved matter: Landscape.
The proposal has been screened out under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011 due to its scale being significantly under the thresholds set out in Schedule 2. The LPA concludes that an Environmental Statement is not required.
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 significant likely impacts on any European Designated sites would occur as a result of the development and Appropriate Assessment is not required.
Representations received
6 individual letters of objection were received from local residents, with a further 17 letters from residents at 4 properties in close proximity to the site. These letters raised a range of concerns relating to the outline application already approved and the reserved matters landscape scheme for determination.
The following comments related to matters determined at outline stage and therefore are not addressed at part of this application:
Lack of public consultation; Alterations to outline application without adequate consultation; Impact on designated conservation area; Impact on views of Listed windmill; Impact on Listed windmill and its setting; Impact on views from Listed windmill; Impact on wildlife; Disrupting natural corridors between pockets of woodland; Impact on SINC and the River Hamble; Urbanisation of SINC boundary; Inadequate compensation for loss of green space; Land stability and contamination issues as result of unauthorised tipping and burial of a spring; Potential for contaminated waste within site; Unsuitable for development due to topography, contamination and unsafe access; Traffic congestion; Impact on parking and traffic on Windmill Lane; Pedestrian safety due to increased traffic movements; Impact of construction traffic; Impact on designated countryside and gap; Contrary to emerging Local Plan 2011-2036; Loss of village identity; Impact on infrastructure; Overdevelopment; Combined impacts as a result of the level of development in the area; Undue political interference at outline stage; Conflict with dismissed appeal for 4 units on smaller site; Impact on natural well and pond at The Mill House; Impact on tree screening between The Mill House and the site; Impact on neighbours amenity and overlooking; Encroachment; Position of internal road on unstable ground.
In addition, a question has been raised in relation to the lack of testing for contamination at depth, following the submission of land contamination information to support the current application as a result of correspondence with residents upon the granting of outline permission. This matter relates to, and will be addressed through, the relevant conditions imposed on the outline decision notice (conditions 22 and 23).
The following concerns relate to the matter currently before Members for determination:
Lack of screening at boundaries; Lack of planting/fencing to stream bank and woodland to restrict access; Multiple levels and concrete retaining walls ugly and failure to enhance conservation area; Addition of pumping station in visual zone; Impact of proposal for surfaced and lit pathway from adjacent proposed development; Overabundance of watercourses a risk to children.
2 letters of broad support for the development were received, citing the need for the following matters to be addressed:
Need for road improvements to be implemented prior to commencement; Retention of boundary trees between Windmill Lane and the development; Temporary issues during the construction phase such as dust, noise, construction vehicle traffic, and visual impact.
Consultation responses The consultation responses received have been summarised below.
Planning Policy and Regeneration: Conservation Officer: Following the submission of revised landscape plans, no comments to make.
Landscape Officer: The majority of initial concerns now addressed. There is a question mark around the ability to maintain the bio-retention area between plots 23 and 24 due to the planting proposed around the perimeter. The perimeter planting along the southern boundary of the open corridor needs to be maintained at a low level to ensure child safety.
Biodiversity Officer: Thank you for consulting me on the amended landscaping scheme and management plan. I am now happy with the landscaping plans. I would question whether mowing can be undertaken in November to January on the wetland as this site is wet and therefore maybe un-mowable at this time of year. However the small revisions required for the Management Plan can be dealt with within the condition discharge process. I am therefore happy that appropriate information is available to grant the reserved matters application for this site.
Parks and Open Spaces Manager: No objection.
Initial concerns have been addressed and now comfortable with the proposed scheme.
Transportation and Engineering: No objection.
Access has been agreed with HCC and parking across the development meets the Council’s standards. Refuse collection points should be provided for plots 4-9 and 10-15 and CAD Autotrack drawings provided to confirm access for a refuse vehicle if a car is located roadside.
Environmental Health: No objection.
Although there are outstanding issues relating to previously raised concerns around ground gas, I am now satisfied that the concerns can be addressed and dealt with under the contaminated land condition attached to the original outline permission. The confirmation received regarding site levels and soil testing means that I have no objections to the reserved matters application for landscaping.
Bursledon Parish Council: Following the submission of revised landscape plans, additional comments have been invited. To date, no further comments have been received, therefore the initial objection has been summarized below:
Objection.
Concerns regarding risk to children from areas of open water, risk to homeowners from contaminated land, future maintenance of landscaping including SuDS features, lack of detail regarding proposed pedestrian links, impact of retaining walls and proposed pumping station. The Parish Council is also concerned that previous objections raised have not been addressed in the revised landscape proposal.
Bursledon Parish Council fully support concerns raised by the following Eastleigh Borough Council consultees: Biodiversity Officer; Environmental Health Officer; Parks and Open Spaces Manager; Conservation Officer.
Bursledon Rights of Way and Amenities Preservation Group: Objection.
We re-iterate the objections raised in our response to the outline application. These relate to traffic impact, access problems, impact on public views of the windmill, the windmill itself, and its setting and on biodiversity. The land is designated countryside and local gap and should be protected as such.
The existence of contaminated land on site and failures in the notification process have also been brought to our attention.
Matters raised by the Council’s Parks and Open Spaces Manager around child safety and management responsibilities are noted.
Eastleigh Southern Parishes Older People’s Forum: Objection.
Detracts from the semi-rural character of Bursledon and robs older residents of familiar views of the windmill and its setting that give them their sense of place.
However, given the pressure to build houses, consider the site’s proximity to Tesco and public transport makes it an ideal situation for older people’s accommodation which is needed in Bursledon. This could be screened and provided where it would not block views of the windmill nor occupy contaminated land. Chalet bungalows are very popular with older residents who wish to downsize and would lessen the impact on this sensitive site.
There is no residential care home in Bursledon and this could also be considered.
Southern Water Services: The comments in our previous responses dated 28/08/2014 remain valid and unchanged.
Due to the vibration, noise and potential odour generated by sewage pumping stations, no habitable rooms should be located closer than 15 metres to the boundary of a proposed pumping station site.
All adoptable drainage should comply with Sewers for Adoption standards.
No new soakaways, swales, ponds, watercourses or any other surface water retaining or conveying features should be located within 5 metres of a public (also adoptable) sewers.
Please note a manhole will normally be required before connection of rising main to public sewer.
The design of drainage should ensure that no land drainage or ground water is to enter public sewers network.
Policy context: designation applicable to site
Countryside (outside urban edge) Local Gap (between Hedge End and Bursledon) Designated Conservation Area (Bursledon Windmill) Adjacent Grade II* Listed Building (Bursledon Windmill) Solent Disturbance Mitigation Zone
National Planning Policy Framework
In the interests of brevity, only the relevant paragraphs directly related to this reserved matters scheme for landscaping have been identified below. The principle of development and the material planning considerations related to access, layout, appearance and scale have been established through the consideration and subsequent approval of the outline planning permission.
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 where the development plan is absent, silent, or relevant policies are out-of-date states that 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). 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.
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.
Paragraph 17 sets out 12 core planning principles that include always seeking to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing occupiers of land.
Paragraph 56 contains a requirement for good design and para. 58 requires policies and decisions to 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; and are visually attractive as result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.
Paragraph 61 states that securing high quality and inclusive design go 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.
Paragraph 69 indicates that 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.
Paragraph 73 sets out that 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.
Paragraphs 109, 118, 120 and 121 seek to minimise the impacts on, and where possible enhance, biodiversity; and require proposed uses to take appropriate account of any pollution, land stability matters and ground conditions.
Paragraph 203 states that LPAs should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations.
National Planning Practice Guidance
Only the guidance that is directly relevant to the application under consideration has been provided.
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.
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.
The Development Plan
At the current time the Development Plan for the Borough comprises the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) and the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (October 2013).
The site is not within a Minerals Safeguarding Area, therefore the Minerals and Waste Plan is not directly relevant to the scheme being considered.
Saved Policies of the Adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (EBLP 2001- 2011)
In relation to this reserved matters application, the key policies of the adopted local plan are;
3.CO - planning permission will not be granted for development which would physically or visually diminish a local gap as identified on the proposals map.
18.CO – seeks to limit development which has an adverse effect on the character of the landscape.
23.NC – land adjacent to the site is covered by the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation notation and protection of SINCs.
25.NC – promotion of biodiversity.
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.
102.T – Requires new development to provide safe accesses that do not have adverse environmental implications and are to adoptable standard.
Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2019
The Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 was submitted for examination in July 2014, but the Inspector concluded that insufficient housing was being provided for in the Plan and that is was unsound.
The Submitted Local Plan has not been formally withdrawn and therefore remains a material planning consideration. Whilst the weight that can be attributed to the draft policies of the Submitted Eastleigh Local Plan 2011-2029 is extremely limited, nevertheless it represents the most recent statement of the Council’s development strategy for the borough. As such, it will be used where appropriate to guide new development proposals until its replacement, the new Local Plan 2011-2036, has been prepared. The Council consulted on the Issues and Options Document (December 2015) from 23 December 2015 until 17 February 2016. Following the completion of the consultation the Council are now undertaking the additional technical work required to inform the next formal stage in the plan-making process.
The most relevant draft policies of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 are:
S1 – promoting sustainable development; 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 character of the countryside or the separate identity of the adjoining settlements will not be permitted; S11/DM9 – the land to the south of 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; DM5 – Sustainable surface water management; DM9 – seeks to protect Sites of Nature Conservation Interest 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; DM10 – Heritage Assets; DM33 – New and enhanced recreation and open space facilities requirements.
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Supplementary Planning Document: Quality Places (November 2011) Supplementary Planning document : Biodiversity (December 2009) Supplementary Planning Document: Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Proposals Policy commentary
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
Sections 70(2) and 79(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 require a decision-maker determining an application to do so in accordance with the Development Plan unless materials considerations indicate otherwise.
The development plan in this case comprises the saved policies of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011. 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 extremely limited weight in the determination of this application.
In terms of “other material planning considerations”, the National Planning Policy Framework and Guidance constitute material considerations of significant weight.
The Principle of Development As discussed above, the principle of development has been established through the granting of outline planning permission (ref. C/14/74932). In addition, the matters of access, layout, appearance and scale have also been resolved. The only matter for determination as part of this application is that of landscaping.
Design and Amenity During the course of the application, extended discussions have taken place with the applicant to develop a good landscape scheme that takes account of the complexities of the site. Revisions have been secured to take account of matters raised by consultees and local residents. The proposed landscape scheme seeks to balance the heritage and nature conservation/enhancement aspects of the site and its setting while addressing the constraints of the site in terms of topography and ground conditions. Of paramount importance is the maintenance of the ‘visual zone’, the open corridor that allows relatively un-impeded views of the windmill. This land will perform as informal open space and comprises primarily of grassland/ wildflower habitat with mown paths. Vertical planting in this area has been minimized with the exception of the creation of an avenue of trees framing the space, positioned in front of the two rows of terrace properties that define the boundaries of this visual zone on site. While the pumping station has been located within this zone, it is a submerged station therefore the only visible signs will be two personnel covers on the ground. The scheme has provided for a mixture of wildflower meadow, swales with a wetland meadow mix as part of the Sustainable Urban Drainage System, reinforced planting along the northeastern boundary and a native hedgerow along the northern boundary to the open space/reptile translocation area. Access to this area is provided via a combined field gate and pedestrian gate. The main, private road through the site is to be finished with macadam, with drives to be block paved. The pedestrian footpath around the site will accord with the Hampshire County Council Type 4 approved footway, which is a self-binding gravel path appropriate for a rural location. An indicative pedestrian access is shown as a mown path to link with the adjacent proposed development site that is currently under consideration. Should this connection not be required, the grass would remain unmown and the hedgerow allowed to grow. Delivery of the junction improvements were secured as part of the S106 legal agreement associated with the outline permission and requires completion of the works prior to occupation of the development. Additional native screen planting has been included to protect existing residents adjacent to the site from glare from vehicles and to help screen the development. A range of trees are also to be planted at appropriate locations across the site and in rear gardens, located at an acceptable distance from buildings. Residents have raised concerns related to the lack of planting/fencing along the stream bank and SINC to restrict access. The existing trees and scrub along the top of the stream bank is to be retained and the existing hedgerow along the eastern boundary, including the area in the southeast corner which abuts the SINC is to be reinforced. Fencing is not considered to be appropriate, given the need for wildlife to be able to move through these areas. Due to the topography of the site and the steepness of the slope, it is necessary for retaining walls to be constructed at points within the development. The developer has sought to minimize the number and scale of these and will construct them using the same brick as the architectural detail on the associated building. For the most part, these structures will be obscured or partially obscured by the surrounding buildings and the more visible component will be the close boarded fencing typically associated with garden boundaries. No retaining structures are proposed within the visual corridor. On balance, it is considered these structures do not cause material harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Residents have asked that the temporary impacts during the construction phase of the development are managed to limit the disturbance. This will be controlled through the use of a Construction Environmental Management Plan condition on the outline permission (condition 10).
Trees and Biodiversity The majority of existing trees and planting along the boundaries of the site will be retained and reinforced as appropriate. The mature and attractive Oak tree within the site will be retained and forms the centerpiece of one of the two areas of informal open space within area of development. The scheme has been amended to remove species that are invasive in woodlands and wildflower habitat provided to enhance the range of habitats available for wildlife. Hedgerow corridors are to be created to enable wildlife to move between the site and woodland. The main area of open space to the north also serves as the reptile translocation area for this scheme and is secured under the S106 legal agreement linked to the outline permission. Some minor revisions are required in relation to the landscape management plan, which can be addressed via the relevant condition on the outline permission. The landscaping within the public areas will be managed by the management company, together with the highway, footpaths and large area of public open space to the north.
Impact on Heritage Assets The impact of the development upon the conservation area and the Listed building has been assessed and accepted through the granting of outline permission. In comparison, the landscape scheme has limited impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the Listed building. The scheme has retained the openness of the visual zone and has provided a larger indigenous planting scheme taking account of the semi-rural setting.
Planning obligation /considerations This application relates solely to landscaping reserved matters and therefore no obligations are necessary as these have been secured as part of the outline application.
Conclusion
The landscape scheme has sought to take account of heritage and ecological issues, together with topographical and hydrogeological constraints, to provide an appropriate setting for the approved residential development.
On balance, it is considered that the landscape scheme accords with relevant local and national policy and guidance and therefore it is recommended that reserved matters consent be granted.
Land to the rear of
Orchard Lodge C/16/77959