Item No.: 02 The information, recommendations and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.
PROPOSAL OUTLINE - Residential development of 22 dwellings and associated works (as additional information received 04/08/2014) REVISED APPLICATION FORM AND CORRECTED NUMBER OF DWELLINGS LOCATION: Land to the north of the Telephone Exchange, Lymington Bottom Road, Medstead, Alton REFERENCE : 39009/003 PARISH: Medstead APPLICANT: Mr M Newell CONSULTATION 26 August 2014 EXPIRY : APPLICATION EXPIRY : 09 September 2014 COUNCILLOR(S): Cllr M C Johnson MBE, Cllr I Thomas SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL
This application has been included on the agenda as it is a departure from the adopted policies of the Local Plan and is being considered under the Interim Housing Policy Statement.
Site and Development
Application site The site is situated to the north of Lymington Bottom Road on the corner with the junction with Soldridge Road and Five Ash Road. The land comprises an agricultural field, bordered by hedgerows and amounts to 2 ha. The site is outside of, but adjoins the settlement policy boundary, which follows the linear development on either side of Lymington Bottom Road. That development is characterised by residential development of detached properties set in spacious plots. There is further, but more sporadic development, to the west and east but open agricultural land is the dominant land use, with linear hedgerows and isolated and groups of trees.
Proposed development The application is made in outline and seeks permission for 22 dwellings with access only to be considered at this stage. The existing field would be closed up and a new access formed, approximately 40m south of the existing access. Although only the access is to be considered at this stage, the applicant has provided an indicative layout plan, which includes a balancing pond and an area of public open space to the southern part of the site. The main proposals are:
• Outline application with access only for detailed consideration. • Promoted under the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement (IHPS) • 22 dwellings - 13 market units, 9 affordable units • Density of 33dph • New access created from Lymington Bottom Road • Open market housing: 2 x 1 bed; 2 x 2 bed; 3 x 3 bed; 6 x 4 bed • Affordable housing: 2 x 1 bed; 4 x 2 bed; 3 x 3 bed; (6 affordable rent, 3 intermediate)
The application is also supported by detailed consultant’s reports, including;
• Design and Access Statement • Flood Risk Assessment • Transport Statement • Ecological Appraisal • Ground (Environmental) Report and Risk Assessment
Relevant Planning History
No relevant planning history on the site.
Other current major housing applications in Four Marks/South Medstead settlement area
25256/032 - Land at Friars Oak Farm, Boyneswood Road, Medstead - Erection of 80 dwellings, including 32 affordable homes, garages, car parking, associated access, infrastructure, open space and landscaping. At their meeting on 26 June this year, members of the Council's Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a S.106 legal agreement.
55358/FUL - Land at Winchester Road (Adjoining 173), Four Marks - 136 residential dwellings with associated works, access, parking, landscaping and open space. Currently under consideration.
55197/001/FUL - Land East of, 20 - 38 Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead - 75 dwellings with associated access, landscaping, public open space and provision of allotments. Currently under consideration.
55258/001 - Outline - Land North of Boyneswood Lane, Medstead - 51 dwellings. Refused at 17 July 2014 committee meeting.
55302 - Land rear of 41-43A Blackberry Lane, Four Marks - Full application for 23 dwellings. Refused at 7 August 2014 committee meeting.
Development Plan Policies and Proposals
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014)
CP1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development CP2 - Spatial Strategy CP10 - Spatial strategy for housing CP11 - Housing tenure, type and mix CP13 - Affordable housing on residential development sites CP16 - Protection and provision of social infrastructure CP18 - Provision of open space, sport and recreation and built facilities CP19 - Development in the countryside CP20 - Landscape CP21 - Biodiversity CP25 - Flood Risk CP26 - Water resources/ water quality CP27 - Pollution CP28 - Green Infrastructure CP29 - Design CP31 - Transport CP32 - Infrastructure
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (2006)
T3 - Pedestrians and Cyclists H14 - Other Housing Outside Settlement Policy Boundaries C6 - Tree Preservation HE17 - Archaeological & Ancient Monuments P7 - Contaminated Land
Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Sets out the government's planning policy and sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Village Design Statement - Medstead - A Vision for the Future - non statutory planning guidance that has been the subject of public consultation and therefore is a material planning consideration. Medstead Parish Plan 2008
Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments
County Highways Officer - Lymington Bottom Road is a "C" class road which is subject to a 30 mph speed limit. There are no pedestrian facilities either side of the road. From the site visit it was observed that a proportion of traffic exceeds the speed limit to the south of the site.
Lymington Bottom Road at this location is subject to flooding. The pond to which water currently drains has no positive outlet. I understand the applicant is to offer an opportunity to drain into the proposed pond shown on the site plan. The natural course of water if the pond overflows would be to the south where I understand at least one property may have raised the level of their garden which results in the water being held back. With the pond having no outlet to a watercourse further details are required before this element can be considered. No surface water drainage is shown but one must assume that it will drain to the pond. At this stage it is not clear who would be responsible for its maintenance.
The site plan shows the formation of a new access south of the existing which is shown as being stopped up. At this stage no sections or levels are indicated and without a long section through the splay to the south I cannot confirm that the splay can be achieved in the vertical plane. That said it is clear that the splay can be provided within a short distance to the north. The splays required will be 2.4 Metres by 43 Metres.
It is not clear if children of junior school age would attend Medstead School or that in Four Marks, in both cases the schools are beyond a reasonable walking distance and I therefore assume must would be taken to school in motor vehicles. Pupils of senior school age would need to catch public transport to Alton or Alresford from Winchester Road and taking into account the level of facilities that are in that direction there is need for a footway in that direction.
If permitted, there would be a requirement for a contribution in line with Hampshire County Council's Transport Contributions Policy. This is based on the number of additional multi- modal trips generated by the development. This amounts to £***** which would be used towards the provision of the pedestrian facilities mentioned above.
No objection subject to following conditions: • Surface water to highway-details required • Access construction - details required • Access construction provision • Closure of existing access provision • Services area provision • Bin/cycle store - details required
Housing Officer - This application includes 9 affordable dwellings, which slightly exceeds the minimum 40% requirement. The housing need figures, for rented accommodation in Medstead are as follows (figures taken from Hampshire Homechoice Register): 1 bed: 193 2 bed: 100 3 bed: 31 4 bed: 14 Total: 338 Included within these figures are applicants who have a local connection with the parish (live, work or have family there). The JCS policy CP13 requires housing applicants expressing a need to live in Medstead to show some form a local connection. However, a cascade to the wider EHDC District is also required to ensure that private funding can be secured to procure the affordable homes. The numbers of applicants with a local connection are currently: 1 bed: 14 2 bed: 1 3 bed: 1 4 bed: 1 Total: 17 In addition to the housing need for rented accommodation there are a further 14 households registered with the Help to Buy agent requiring intermediate housing in Medstead / Four Marks. The affordable housing mix is proposed as 2 No. one bed houses, 4 No. two bed houses and 3 No. three bed houses. This mix relates well to the housing need, by offering accommodation for smaller households, whilst also recognising the need for a lesser number of larger family homes. The applicant is proposing a tenure split where a 1 bed, 2 bed and three bed are offered as intermediate housing with the remaining 6 as affordable rent. This tenure split is acceptable. The integration of the affordable units across small sites such as this can be challenging, however in this case I believe the applicant has addressed this well. Five of the affordable units are located at the entrance of the site with the remaining four located at the rear. Both groups of affordable dwellings are located adjacent to market housing and both groups will contain a mix of rented and intermediate housing to further help the tenure balance within the site. The Design and Quality of the affordable homes should be to HCA standards to ensure eligibility for grant, if available. The affordable homes and affordable land should be transferred to a Registered Provider with appropriate triggers for the delivery of the affordable homes secured in a suitable legal agreement. The affordable housing provisions within the application are acceptable, comply with policy and I support this application proceeding in it's current form.
Drainage Consultant - The site is located in Flood Zone 1, however, the flood mapping indicates a band of potential surface water flooding, running north-south, along the eastern boundary. The proposals will result in a large increase in surface water run-off, which must be controlled on site and not impact on third party land or the public highway.
A level 2 Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted, however this is based on a desktop study and assumes that SUDS drainage will operate effectively. This may not be the case, as many parts of Medstead have heavy clays overlying the chalk bedrock. The proposed infiltration basin is sited in an area shown to be at risk of surface water flooding.
Foul drainage will discharge to a sewerage treatment plant and associated drainage field sited in the open space. This will require Environment Agency consent, supported by satisfactory infiltration tests.
Objection, pending receipt of additional drainage details, supported by geotechnical site investigation to confirm storage volumes and infiltration rates. A more detailed drainage layout plan is also required showing potential overland flood flow routes.
Environment Agency - We agree with the conclusions of the applicants 'Environmental Desk Study and Preliminary Risk Assessment' that a further investigation is necessary and await a Phase 2 of the investigation to see if there is likely to be any impact on controlled waters. We consider planning permission could be granted for the proposed development as submitted if the following conditions are included: • Details of risk associated with contamination of the site have been agreed including a site investigation report and remediation strategy. • No infiltration of surface water other than with the express written consent with the LPA where it has been demonstrated there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters.
Environmental Health, Contamination - The submitted desktop study relating to potential contamination issues at the above site has been reviewed and I have the following comments to make regarding its content:
The preliminary risk assessment has identified potential contaminants of concern, including heavy metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons, poly aromatic hydrocarbons and asbestos. An intrusive site investigation is therefore required to be undertaken and which needs to assess the potential pollutant linkages identified in the preliminary conceptual site model of the desktop study. Potential risks from ground gas should be further characterised after trial pits enable assessment of levels of made ground.
Site investigations are to be in accordance with best practice as outlined in BS10175:2011. Soil sampling should be detailed enough to characterise potential contamination at both surface and at depth where risks have been identified to receptors. Any gas monitoring is to be in accordance with best practice as outlined in CIRIA C665 and BS8576:2013.
As a development sensitive to contamination and given the findings of the desktop study, standard conditions are recommended to be attached to any Decision Notice.
Environmental Health, Pollution - Having reviewed the planning application I would recommend approval subject to the two conditions below: 1) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Environmental Management Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Thereafter all works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Statement throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials (including times) iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development iv) wheel washing facilities v) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction vi) measures to control noise and vibration during construction 2) Before construction commences, a written external lighting scheme, must be submitted and agreed by the local Planning Authority. The external lighting plan for the site, must comply with the Guidance for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light criteria “ E2”
County Archaeologist - While archaeology does not present an overriding concern given the scale of the development there is the potential for previously unidentified remains of local significance to be encountered. The site lies to the north of the line of the Roman Road running between Winchester and London and there may be evidence of Roman activity within the landscape corridor of the road.
I would advise that should planning consent be granted the recording of any archaeological deposits within the area should be secured through the attachment of a suitable archaeological condition.
County Ecologist - In summary, I consider that clarification is required in relation to potential impacts on legally-protected species.
The application is accompanied by an Ecological Appraisal which provides an assessment of the current ecological value of the application site. In general terms the report is sound and provides useful detail on the range of likely ecological constraints. The site comprises a single field containing short, species-poor grassland which is currently used for the rearing of pigs: this activity is highly likely to have reduced any ecological value. There are boundary hedgerows containing trees. In habitat terms the site is unremarkable, with the structured boundaries providing the chief biodiversity interest. There are however several potential issues in respect to legally-protected species.
Bats The site contains no built structures and it would appear that there is to be no significant removal of boundary trees. However, the ecology report is not explicit in its relationship to the actual proposed site layout (or rather vice versa) and so there is uncertainty as to the extent of proposed impacts to trees and the implications in terms of bats. I would welcome clarification on whether trees to be removed are a potential constraint. I would also request that details of site lighting measures are provided - there is an abundance of scientific evidence that artificial lighting can have a detrimental impact on bat species as well as other organisms and therefore its use in the open countryside, (most importantly in areas not previously illuminated, but including changes to existing lighting) should be minimised as far as reasonably possible. There are many technical solutions to minimising the deleterious impacts of lighting – for example, LED lighting contains no UV component (lux measurements do not include UV levels and are not therefore wholly suitable for gauging ecological impact) and is thus generally less attracting to invertebrate species. It is perfectly feasible to provide adequate illumination for residential uses with modern LED lamps. Similarly, LED lamps using ‘warmer’ frequencies (e.g. Philips Clearfield/Clearsky) are purportedly less harmful still.
Hazel dormice In my opinion, the presence of hazel dormice within the boundary hedges is a potential constraint – whilst there are no known records of this species in the immediate vicinity of the application site, nevertheless the Medstead/Four Marks area is a known stronghold of this species within East Hampshire and there are both recent and relatively historical records from various sites locally: it is clear that, in this landscape, this species is persisting in what are often considered to be suboptimal habitats, namely field boundary hedgerows. In the context of Hampshire, and especially in this local landscape, I would suggest that the notion of a suboptimal hedgerow (based solely on species composition and structural integrity (‘gappiness’)) is tenuous and that the species could potentially occur in any structured woody vegetation or associated dense vegetation such as bracken or bramble – evidence is mounting that this species will utilise a wide range of habitat types previously considered suboptimal or unsuitable, and that habitat gaps are no significant barrier to movement. It is not therefore unreasonable to consider this species as a potential occupant of boundary features.
Whilst I do appreciate that the proposals do not entail the removal of significant areas of potential dormouse habitat, the proposed development may still impact dormice populations (if present) in a number of ways. Firstly, there is to be the direct loss of intact hedgerow at the eastern boundary in order to provide new access – I would request that the quantum of hedge to be lost is considered: this should include the 2.4m x 80m required for access visibility splay. Secondly, the proximity of the developed area to existing dormouse habitat may degrade its suitability through disturbance (e.g. edge effects through human presence (not least during a protracted construction period), unsympathetic management, dumping of garden waste or litter, presence of domestic pets, pressure to remove/alter habitat). The illustrative layout shows that much of the boundary hedging will be included within residential gardens – will this not entail impacts? How are these to be avoided/mitigated?
Thirdly, the presence of artificial lighting has the potential to further reduce the suitability of the habitat bordering the site – there is ample scientific evidence that artificial lighting harms wildlife by e.g. disrupting normal behavioural rhythms and placing organisms under stress. These issues need to be discussed with explicit reference to the site layout: I suspect that the latest site layout was developed well after any input from the ecologist team when in fact ecological constraints should be foremost in the design stage.
Great crested newt (GCN) The report identifies that Five Ash Pond is situated almost immediately adjacent to the site’s north-eastern edge. I concur with the assessment that there is potential for any GCN present within the pond to occur within the application site. Indeed, paragraph 8.3 of the ecology report states that “ prior to any planning application being submitted for development of the site, it would be prudent to establish the presence or absence of Great Crested Newts in order to ensure compliance with UK nature legislation and where necessary avoid or mitigate impacts on this species ”. Unfortunately, this appears not to have been carried out. I would therefore request further clarification on the issue of GCN: there is more than a reasonable chance that this species could occur.
In summary, there are outstanding ecological issues which require clarification, prior to further determination.
Further comments received 12 August 2014 in response to Great Crested Newt Survey - I can confirm that the submitted great crested newt (GCN) survey (Ecosulis, July 2014) is sufficient to remove concerns that this species may be present and impacted. I do however have remaining concerns in respect to both bats and dormice – I note that the email to Jon Holmes from Paul White at Genesis Town Planning states that the applicant intends not to provide further information on these potentially important constraints.
Using my professional experience and local knowledge, I again reiterate to the applicant that the on-site hedgerows offer suitable dormouse habitat (the species is evidently present in supposed suboptimal habitat throughout the local landscape) and so the potential impacts to this species need to be considered, especially as there is a potentially large amount of hedgerow removal due to access plus visibility splay. Similarly, there was/is little detail on potential impact to roosting bats – again, I requested further information on likelihood of impacts.
Arboricultural Officer - Comments to be reported at the meeting
Thames Water - Surface Water Drainage - With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. It is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of groundwater.
Following initial investigation, Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this application. Should the Local Planning Authority look to approve the application, Thames Water would like the following 'Grampian Style' condition imposed. “Development shall not commence until a drainage strategy detailing any on and/or off site drainage works, has been submitted to and approved by, the local planning authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be accepted into the public system until the drainage works referred to in the strategy have been completed”. Reason - The development may lead to sewage flooding; to ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community. Should the Local Planning Authority consider the above recommendation is inappropriate or are unable to include it in the decision notice, it is important that the Local Planning Authority liaises with Thames Water Development Control Department (telephone 0203 577 9998) prior to the Planning Application approval.
Supplementary Comments There is no existing connection serving the site. Regarding the capacity of the foul sewerage network and onwards via Chawton to the STW at Alton, an analysis of the network will be necessary to confirm if capacity is available for this development and also its possible connection route. Therefore, it will be necessary for developer to fund impact study to ascertain whether the proposed development will lead to overloading of existing waste water infrastructure. Also to ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to accommodate the wastewater discharged from the development.
South East Water - No comments received.
Hampshire County Schools Organisation Officer - The proposed site sits in the catchment area of Four Marks Primary School. The forecast shows a shortfall in places in the area. The proposed development would add to this projected shortfall, consequently I will be seeking a contribution for additional primary places, in line with the County Council's Developer Contributions Policy. This is based on £5,057 per eligible dwelling which gives a total of £91,026.
Medstead Parish Council - has major concerns with this outline planning application and therefore must register its very strong Objection.
Policy background and conflict This application fails to comply with EHDC's Interim Policy Statement on Housing. Para 2 - It is not the appropriate size and does not take into account the cumulative impact of other applications. Para 3 - It does not enhance the landscape. Para 7 - It is not possible to walk easily (safely) to a range of facilities, schools, pubs, dentists, etc. Para 11 - The density is inappropriate.
The proposed development, by virtue of the committed number of additional dwellings already approved under the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement for this settlement, would result in a disproportionate number of additional homes above and beyond the identified housing figure for Four Marks/South Medstead as set out in the adopted Joint Core Strategy and Interim Housing Policy Statement. Having regard to the deficiencies and inadequacies in existing local infrastructure and services, this would have an adverse impact on the sustainability of the settlement. As such, the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policies CP1, CP2 and (non-housing target aspects of) CP10 of the Joint Core Strategy, and the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014.
The level of development proposed would not be consistent with maintaining and enhancing the character of the settlement but instead would place undue pressure on the limited range of local services in this small local service centre. This would be at odds with the spatial strategy for the District which seeks to reinforce a settlement's role and function. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policy CP1, CP2 and (non- housing target aspects of) CP10 of the Joint Core Strategy and the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014.
EHDC’s recently adopted L.I.P.S. states ‘The most sustainable housing sites will minimise traffic impact on the A31 and the rail crossing bottlenecks; provide mixed density, high quality homes to meet generational needs to create a longer term community spirit; provide improved water and sewerage infrastructure or have no negative impact on the existing situation; provide significant improvements to the recreation/ leisure facilities and potentially improve retail, health and education facilities. Developments that do not have a positive impact on these features would undermine the community growth of Four Marks and South Medstead as a sustainable place to live’. This application actively contradicts and fails to comply with ALL of these criteria.
Location This site is on the very edge of the SPB, beyond the last building, which is a well hidden telephone exchange, with agricultural fields to the west and opposite to the north east. It is a truly rural setting reinforced by the absence of footpaths and street lighting. This application is beyond the extremity of the built area of Lymington Bottom Road and if allowed will erode the visual open gap between the more densely build area of south Medstead and that of the village area. This scheme would have a suburban appearance, out of keeping with the area and be unacceptably harmful to the rural character of the locality.
The northern most 700m of Lymington Bottom Road is a linear development and this application proposes to insert an estate which is totally out of keeping. This estate type development would require street lighting in some form hence totally ruining the pureness of the darkness in this area through light pollution contrary to HCC policy. Until very recently the site was natural pasture and would appear to have been deliberately turned into a state of dereliction. EHDC has recently refused an application not 400m from this site on the grounds that it will reduce the agricultural land by 0.2 hectares – this site is 10 times that size.
Layout and house designs As this is an outline application we will not comment at this point.
Drainage Foul - We were informed by EHDC that due to concerns by the statutory authorities that there would be no estates considered that could not be connected to main drainage - this application very clearly states that foul drainage will be a sewage treatment plant. Surface Water - It is known that part of this site is an old water course. The drainage department at EHDC state ‘the flood mapping indicates a band of potential surface water flooding, running north-south, along the eastern boundary. The proposals will result in a large increase in surface water run-off, which must be controlled on site and not impact on third party land or the public highway. A level 2 FRA has been submitted, however this is based on a desktop study and assumes that SUDS drainage will operate effectively. This may not be the case, as many parts of Medstead have heavy clays overlying the chalk bedrock. The proposed infiltration basin is sited in an area shown to be at risk of surface water flooding. There are no drawings with any levels shown or details as to how the pond will work so therefore no guarantee that this proposal will solve the flooding problem on the road nor indeed avoid any possible flooding around Plots 1 - 12. At times of heavy rainfall there is visual evidence that the flooding in Lymington Bottom Road is caused primarily by runoff from fields to the north and from South Town Road not the applicants land.
Water supply The application does not address the problem of very low water pressure in the area. Mid Southern Water do not appear to have been consulted on this and therefore have not commented.
Electricity supply There is no mention of any consultations or proposals regarding the electricity supply. This area suffers from frequent outages, suggesting that there is a problem coping with current demand not to mention the increased load which will be called for by the 200 plus houses that EHDC have already approved in south Medstead alone. Until all of the relevant Statutory Undertakings have addressed water supply, foul drainage and power this application should be refused.
Road safety, etc We await Hampshire Highways report on whether the additional traffic will affect the junction with the A31 and the effect on the single line traffic under the railway bridge or whether this report adequately takes into account the cumulative numbers of traffic movements caused by recent developments and applications. We would expect the report to require improvements to junctions, roads etc.
Much is made in the application about the offer to contribute towards a footway along Lymington Bottom Road from the site south to the bridge. This footway would urbanise even more the feel of this road.
Social infrastructure needs There is nothing in this application that addresses the need to increase the already very low opportunities for employment locally. This application does not address the need for additional infrastructure e.g. doctors, dentists, a post office, entertainment, a public house, somewhere for the youth of the community to meet within the community to be in place before these proposed dwellings are occupied. There is no bus service on Lymington Bottom Road, it has been recently discontinued.
Please REFUSE this application.
Four Marks Parish Council - Although the site is outside of the Four Marks Parish, any proposal in this area has a clear effect on the infrastructure of Four Marks and our OBJECTION is as follows: • Development is outside the settlement policy boundary • Unacceptable loss of agricultural land • There are no footpaths and no regular public transport service available from this development and is only accessible to schools or the centres of Medstead or Four Marks by private transport • There is a lack of public open space provision Approximately 170 dwellings have already been approved in this area, against an agreed number of 175 to be supplied by 2028 and this proposal would exceed that amount
Representations
45 letters of objection and 1 of comment have been received raising the following concerns: a) lack of affordable home requirement for the parish; b) housing target of 175 for Four Marks/South Medstead has already been reached and exceeded; c) lack of footpath linking the site to Four Marks - together with lack of lighting is a major safety concern; d) lack of utilities infrastructure - water pressure, broadband, sewerage capacity; e) high risk of flooding; f) inappropriate scale of development; g) out-of-character with the predominantly rural area; h) lack of infrastructure in the settlement to accommodate additional housing with particular reference to schools, doctors, employment; i) already high level of traffic on Lymington Bottom Road; j) significant impact on the landscape; k) loss of agricultural land; l) loss of privacy by overlooking; m) area is characterised by ribbon development and the application proposes a suburban style estate; n) additional traffic will worsen the bottleneck with the railway bridge; o) development is not sustainable in this location;
4 letters of support have been received raising the following observations: a) proposal extends the existing line of development to the junction; b) provision of affordable housing is welcome; c) it will improve flooding through the provision of a balancing pond; d) it will provide play areas and communal space; e) the provision of a pavement will be a significant benefit; f) it will relieve pressure from other, more harmful development sites; and g) it will improve the existing state of the site.
Determining Issues
1. Development plan and material considerations; 2. Principle of development; 3. Deliverability; 4. Impact on the character and landscape of the area; 5. Access and highway safety; 6. Drainage and flood risk; 7. Impact on ecology; 8. Impact on neighbouring amenity; 9. Infrastructure and developer contributions
Planning Considerations
The key consideration in the determination of this planning application relates, firstly to the principle of housing on this site, given its countryside position having regard to the development plan and the lack of sufficient housing land supply within the district, which has led to the publication of the Interim Housing Policy Statement. As part of the consideration of the principle of development aspects, including the amount of housing proposed, the location and sustainability of the site and the credentials of the application as a deliverable prospect are also key.
1. Development plan and material considerations
As required by Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, applications must be determined in line with the adopted development plan for the area, unless material considerations apply. The development plan for EHDC comprises the 'saved' policies of the 2006 Local Plan: Second Review and the policies set out in the newly adopted Joint Core Strategy.
A significant material consideration is the NPPF, particularly paragraph 49 which confirms that whilst the local planning authority does not have a five year housing supply relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date. East Hampshire District Council does not have a five year supply of housing.
The effect of paragraph 49 of the NPPF is that saved Local Plan policies and JCS policies which restrict market housing development within the countryside beyond designated settlement policy boundaries (SPBs) are, therefore, not considered up-to-date. Whilst many objectors to the application point to restrictions on development outside settlement policy boundaries as sufficient grounds for resisting the application and oppose encroachment into greenfield sites, it is not. There are two reasons for this, firstly, the impact of paragraph 49, and secondly, the Council recognises that the District's housing requirements, as now identified in the Joint Core Strategy, is significantly larger than has previously been the case that development outside the SPBs identified in the Local Plan: Second Review, on greenfield sites, will be essential to meet the new target. The identification of the essential Greenfield sites would be undertaken in the Local Plan: Part 2 Allocations. However, the lack of a 5 year housing land supply brings added urgency to the need to release greenfield sites and effectively takes decisions of principle away from the plan led system and purely into the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as the NPPF sets out at paragraph 14.
The Interim Housing Policy Statement
In recognising the reliance on the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development, the Council has adopted interim supplementary guidance ("Interim Housing Policy Statement”) referred to as the IHPS.
The IHPS establishes a list of criteria and considerations to be applied in determining applications for sites outside settlement policy boundaries relative to sustainability considerations in East Hampshire. A primary sustainable development principle in East Hampshire is the settlement hierarchy. This categorises settlements as market towns; large local service centres; small local service centres and other settlements with a settlement policy boundary. These categories relate to the level of facilities and services that are readily accessible. The IHPS takes forward the sustainability principles of the settlement hierarchy and is only supportive of sites which are immediately adjacent or contiguous to existing local plan settlement policy boundaries. This would ensure that planning is based on sound sustainability principles, whilst containing sprawl and maintaining compact urban envelopes.
The IHPS is not intended to replace or frustrate any part of the plan-making process, but to guide development in its absence and to speed up the delivery of housing within the district. IHPS criteria closely reflect the sustainable development aims and objectives in the NPPF and in the adopted JCS with some additional local criteria which reflect the interim status / purpose of the policy. The IHPS includes a distinction between the housing allocation numbers within key settlements in the JCS; the IHPS does not include the word ‘minimum’. This is because the IHPS is a short term interim position. The Council considers it would be most sustainable to manage the amount of development in each of the target settlements over the 1-2 year period, whilst the Council does not have a five year supply of housing and a Part 2 Local Plan: allocation. To permit all the JCS housing target for the period up to 2028 in a short period is not a sustainable approach to development.
Applications will need to comply with any remaining saved policies in the Local Plan: Second Review, where applicable. The intention of the IHPS is to manage development outside settlement policy boundaries so that it is allowed in locations at an appropriate scale or density, relative to the size, role and character of the settlement in question (Criterion 2) that would result in sustainable development. Criteria 3 and 4 seek to conserve townscape and landscape character, and secure adequate assessment for sites near to European protected species designations (5, 6), and support developments with safe and accessible environments (7). The policy seeks to secure a housing mix that is targeted to the local housing needs and that includes upwards of 40% affordable housing (8, 9). Concurrently, development is expected to make comprehensive and effective use of available land, with appropriate density, helping to control the amount of greenfield land likely to be developed and contain the geographic size of settlements (10, 11). Criteria 12, 13 are concerned with the deliverability of sites and developments coming forward under this policy. These require that development, individually or cumulatively, should not be constrained by the need for significant unplanned / funded off-site infrastructure; that there is evidence of deliverability and viability, having regard to necessary contributions towards infrastructure and affordable housing, and that the intention to develop is demonstrated by the applicant.
Criterion 13 sets out that any planning permission granted under the IHPS would need to commence within 2 years and this will be subject to a planning condition to maximise the likelihood of delivery of housing within the district in the short term. Here, it is important to reflect on the IHPS’ purpose which is clarified in the supporting text at Paragraph 5.2;
“The Council wants new homes delivered in the right places to meet the needs of the District... the emphasis will be on sites being put forward under this Interim Policy Statement approach being deliverable at the time that they are put forward. Therefore detailed applications would be preferred and be accompanied by evidence of deliverability. They should not, for example, be dependent upon delivery of significant off-site infrastructure; and should be fully in the applicant’s control. Those proposing development of a site are therefore encouraged to demonstrate a strong desire and willingness to develop it in the short term, with the necessary evidence to back up such statements.”
Local Interim Planning Statement
The Council is undertaking public consultation events in the main settlements to seek views on sustainability issues affecting that settlement and which housing development sites might best meet local housing needs and place shaping aspirations. The results of the consultations are being collated and combined with an overview of the sustainability profiles of each of the settlements in Local Interim Planning Statements (LIPS). The Four Marks and Medstead LIPS was adopted by Council at the meeting held on 19 June 2014 and is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.
The LIPS have two purposes. They are an initial options consultation under Regulation 18 of the Planning Regulations, the results of which will feed into the Part 2 Local Plan: Allocations. Additionally, the LIPS provide a local supplement to the district wide IHPS referred to above, by adding local detail on what sustainable development should look like in each settlement
The LIPS for Four Marks and Medstead followed two consultation events. These events were held on Wednesday 14 May (5.30pm - 8pm) at the Four Marks Village Hall and on Thursday 15 May (2pm - 4.30pm) at Medstead Village Hall. Approximately 360 people attended the events. The consultation events followed a consistent format which is being used in the preparation of all the LIPS, including the use of display boards containing a housing target map of the whole district, settlement profiles on economy, social facilities, demographics, environmental assets, Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) maps and a large scale aerial map of the settlement area. Those attending the events were able to express a preference on the SHLAA sites and their preferred infrastructure needs as well as leaving comments and feedback. Planning and Community Officers were present to give advice and monitor the expressed preferences.
As the events are an initial step in the Part 2 Local Plan Allocations work, for which there is no regulatory format to follow, they are valuable snapshots of community input. The progress on the Part 2 Local Plan will build on this, together with future community consultation events and use the up to date evidence that already exists for the JCS eg. transport capacity, Sustainability Appraisal, Green Infrastructure Strategy, housing needs, environmental assets etc.
In terms of the housing site choices, there are a large number of options in the Four Marks settlement area, which is an indicator of the popularity of the area with developers and the relatively unconstrained nature of the environment. The data collected shows that there are two clear preferences in Four Marks and South Medstead. The site FM014 which is at the western edge of Four Marks with direct access onto the A31 Winchester Road has the highest preference level with 141 ‘votes’ across the two events (75 at the Four Marks event and 66 at the Medstead event). This site is now the subject of a current application for 136 dwellings (Ref: 55358/FUL).
The second highest preference was for MED004 (Friars' Oak) with 71 ‘votes’ across the two events (49 at the Four Marks event and 22 at the Medstead event). It was resolved to grant planning permission for this development subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement at the Council's Planning Committee on 26 June this year.
The only other sites with any significant preference are MED001 and MED002, which are, in effect, one large area around the rail station on the north side of the railway line.
The site proposed under this planning application is not a SHLAA site (either included or excluded) so no 'votes' were cast on this site.
The community feedback on infrastructure and facilities showed an overwhelming preference for improved infrastructure to deal with flooding, telecoms and water/sewerage. Broadband speeds continue to be below national averages. There have been sewer improvements in Four Marks over the last 15 years; however, the continued growth means the pipes and the Alton Sewage works are reaching capacity, requiring upgrade. The high elevation of Four Marks also means water pressures are relatively poor. The water-related issues are most pronounced north of the railway line. At the Four Marks event there was also a strong preference for community facilities. Some recent improvements have been made to the tennis and bowls facilities but the village hall is in need of updating and the recreation ground and associated buildings have been identified for improvement in the Community Plan.
The access onto the A31 and the traffic using the narrow roads in the Basingstoke/M3 direction are a major issue for Four Marks and South Medstead, particularly at peak times. The A31 junctions at Lymington Bottom and Telegraph Lane are considered to be a safety issue, whilst the narrow rail line crossings at Lymington Bottom Road and Boyneswood Road are seen as bottlenecks for vehicles and a safety issue for pedestrians.
The LIPS also cross references other community engagement that has taken place recently, including the Four Marks Community Plan. All the analysis is clear that Four Marks/South Medstead is an area characterised by commuting and people recently moving into the area resulting a community that lacks some roots and community cohesion. The continued drive for relatively large scale development levels in the settlement is likely to continue that characteristic.
Also of relevance is that Four Marks and Medstead parish areas were designated as a Neighbourhood Planning Area at full Council on 19 June 2014. A Neighbourhood Plan group is in place and will be an appropriate body to undertake the future planning of the area in accordance with the Localism Act. The Neighbourhood Plan group, with the support of the Local Planning Authority, is an appropriate body to consider which are the most sustainable sites in the area and ensure that the social issues in the area are fully taken into account in the sustainable community of the future.
Housing supply considerations
In spite of recent consents, there remains a significant shortfall in housing supply for the district. The requirement for maintaining a 5 year supply (plus buffer) is a rolling target which is imposed on Councils through central government policy. The spatial strategy set out by the JCS and reflected in the IHPS is to distribute new housing throughout the key settlements within the district outside the South Downs National Park in accordance with the settlement hierarchy as follows:
Alton – 700 new homes Horndean - 700 new homes Clanfield – 200 new homes Liphook – 175 new homes Four Marks/South Medstead - 175 new homes Rowlands Castle - 150 new homes Other villages outside the South Downs National Park – 150 new homes
This strategy focuses the majority of new housing to Alton, Horndean and Clanfield, which are classified as market town, large local service centre and small local service centre respectively. Smaller settlements such as Four Marks/South Medstead which is defined as a Small Local Service Centre are intended to accommodate a proportionate amount of housing. The JCS observes that this scale of settlement will:
“have a more limited range of services but are suitable locations to accommodate some new development. These centres will have different roles depending on their size, but they will all play an important part in the life of their communities. They will be maintained to ensure that they provide basic food and grocery shopping, supported by a limited choice and range of other shops plus a range of non-retail services and community uses. Modest development to meet local needs for housing, employment, community services and infrastructure will secure their continuing vitality and ensure thriving communities.”
Thus far planning permissions have been granted for a potential total of 191 dwellings under the IHPS in Four Marks / South Medstead. This includes:
• 69 units on land to the west of Lymington Farm Industrial Estate, Lymington Bottom Road, Four Marks • 3 units on land to rear of Woodfield, Windsor Road in Medstead • 80 units on land at Friars Oak Farm, Boyneswood Road, Medstead • 38 units on land west of Lymington Bottom Road, Medstead • 1 Unit on land west of High Mead, Boyneswood Lane, Medstead.
The identified figure of 175 for the settlement is, therefore, already surpassed.
In considering the proposal subject of this application against the NPPF, relevant saved policies of the second review local plan and the JCS, the site does not seem to have any overriding environmental constraints. If permission were to be granted, it would be in outline and there is, therefore, no guarantee that the development would be brought forward faster than awaiting the allocation of sites through the next stage of the local plan. In its outline form limited weight, therefore, arises in favour of the scheme in relation to the timing of the delivery of new housing locally in accordance with paragraph 5.3 of the IHPS and the whole spirit of the IHPS. Whilst it may be possible to get from outline to full permission and delivery of dwellings on the ground within 2 years, this is a challenge, particularly as potentially significant new homes are already going to be built to supply the local market.
There are notable benefits of securing further affordable housing provision to meet identified local needs. In this respect, the Housing Officer is supportive in principle and points to present levels of need. However, as the scheme would do no more than comply with the policies in the JCS on the provision of affordable housing, the respective contribution does not add significant weight arguments relating to housing need generally. Simply put, any residential scheme should now be expected, unless otherwise justified, to meet the 40% threshold while the IHPS seeks this level as a minimum.
Overall, the scheme would make a contribution to housing supply requirements and towards addressing the shortfall within the district. Addressing this shortfall and the contribution this site would make towards doing so, should be afforded weight in the decision as to whether this proposal is sustainable development.
2. Principle of development
As mentioned earlier, the development must have regard to the NPPF. In the absence of a five year housing land supply, neither the recently adopted Joint Core Strategy nor the saved policies of the local plan can be relied upon in determining the principle of development for applications for housing. Instead, as with similar recent applications, it should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as the NPPF sets out at paragraph 14. which confirms that, where decisions are to be taken and the relevant policies of the development plan are out-of- date, permission should be granted unless:
• Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or • Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted
As there are no specific policies in the NPPF to indicate that such development should necessarily be restricted, the first point is perhaps the most pertinent. The recognised benefits of the proposal include the provision of housing, both market and affordable, for which there is an identified need. These are clear economic and social benefits. For permission to be refused, the adverse impacts of the development need to significantly and demonstrably outweigh these benefits. Quite apart from the consideration of any adverse impact being caused to local character, ecology, flood risk and transport, which will be considered later in the report, there are three preliminary issues to assess in determining the principle of development. i) The adopted housing figure for Four Marks/South Medstead ii) Is the proposal sustainable development e.g. Locational suitability, impact on economic, environmental and social factors? iii) Consideration of alternative sites
i) The adopted minimum housing figure for Four Marks/South Medstead It should not be ignored, that in meeting the district-wide housing need up to 2028, the identified housing distribution for this settlement is a minimum of 175 units. This figure is set out in the spatial strategy of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) and reflected in the IHPS. This amount of housing is based on and proportionate to, the identified settlement hierarchy set out in the JCS. Four Marks/South Medstead is identified as constituting a Level 3 settlement - a small local service centre, having a more limited range of services but which can accommodate some new development.
The adoption of the JCS in May this year followed a Local Plan Inspector's thorough testing of the housing figures for soundness. Consequently, the distribution of housing numbers for each settlement carries significant weight in the determination of a planning application for residential development under the IHPS.
Whilst the JCS establishes the settlement distributions as minimums, the IHPS establishes them as maximums for the very reason that the IHPS purpose is to provide a five year land supply within a short period of time (approximately two years). Having more than 175 units front-loaded within the first couple of years of a plan period up to 2028 would not be a sustainable form of development, as it could have the potential to fundamentally change the established scale of the settlement within a very short space of time. Four Marks/South Medstead has been characterised as a place of housing growth for commuters, where facilities have not kept pace and the social cohesion of the village has primarily been around what many people feel to be fruitless attempts to control what seems like continual growth. On top of this, the necessary infrastructure to support additional development is unlikely to be operational to coincide with the arrival of the new occupants. Therefore, whilst the scheme is not significantly in excess of the 175 units set for Four Marks/South Medstead, the proposal would, nonetheless, result in additional strain on local infrastructure and could have a negative social impact on the sustainability of the settlement. Remembering also that permissions to date amount to 191 units.
Locational suitability
In terms of the location, the application site is adjacent to the settlement policy boundary (SPB). JCS policy CP19 seeks to control development outside SPBs. Nonetheless, for the purposes of the IHPS, officers consider that this site is compliant in terms of its position relative to the SPB.
The site is located to the north of the A31 Winchester Road and the Watercress Line railway which requires access to the services in Four Marks via the bottlenecks of the bridge at Lymington Bottom Road. Whilst it adjoins the SPB, the site is approximately 1.5km from the main services in the village, 2km from the primary school and 725m from the very limited facilities clustered near the railway bridge on Lymington Bottom Road. Lymington Bottom Road does not have a footpath and is not illuminated. There would, therefore, be greater reliance on private transport and the site is not considered to be sustainably located in relation to the settlement. Consideration of alternative sites
Some objectors refer to the lack of a plan-led approach to dealing with development and that alternatives, with preference to “more appropriate Brownfield sites inside the settlement area” or other SHLAA/current application proposals to be considered. The IHPS echoes the strategy pursued by the Joint Core Strategy which will, in any event, seek to allocate (predominantly greenfield) land to secure housing targets. In respect of alternative sites, there are other applications offering development totalling 203 dwellings presently lodged with the authority (as set out in the Planning History section above) but which have not yet reached the same stage of consideration. Each case must be assessed on its merits and for the purposes of the NPPF and development plan, there is no sequential assessment requirement for housing sites when determining planning applications.
Notwithstanding other sites in the area may be preferential in one or other respects and the fact that the public consultation exercise carried out in preparation for the Four Marks and Medstead Local Interim Planning Statement (LIPS) concluded a preference for other sites within Four Marks, it falls to the Council to determine this application on its individual merits, having regard to all material considerations. It is acknowledged, however, that the consultation event resulted in a strong preference for a site in Winchester Road and also for a site that has recently been granted planning permission (Friars Oak). No support was given by residents for development on this current application site through the recent consultation exercise. The LIPS document is a useful indicator of public preferences for development sites and infrastructure needs. However, it does not form part of the statutory development plan and as such, no more than modest weight can be attributed to it in the determination of any planning application.
However, there is a broader point to raise in relation to the suitability of alternative sites and the achievement of a district-wide five year land supply. Officers readily accept that a fundamental principle of Planning is that each case has to be considered on its own merits and that there is no requirement for an applicant to demonstrate theirs is the most sustainable location or development. However, it is the case that the JCS and IHPS primarily focus development towards the market towns and large scale service centres for obvious reasons (existing infrastructure, potentially more public transport connectivity, less scope to detrimentally impact on an established scale of settlement by readily absorbing a proportionately higher number of units). The Council has received and is currently considering, planning applications for large residential development in these much larger settlements, which it could be argued are best placed to accommodate such developments in pursuit of a five year housing land supply. The totality of unit numbers proposed in these proposals combine to significantly exceed the current deficit in the Council's five year housing land supply.
Whilst there is no guarantee that they will all be approved, it is worthy of note that greater numbers within larger settlements are soon to be determined by the Council. It is considered that this further reduces the need to oversail the figure of 175 for Four Marks/South Medstead (having already 191 permitted units) with an additional 22 units which would take housing numbers in the settlement to 213, which equates to 22% over supply for the settlement.
So whilst this site and the development proposed would contribute towards a district wide five year housing land supply, it would have a disproportionate impact in the short term on the sustainability of Four Marks/South Medstead. The principle of development, to the extent that it would exceed the identified and proportionate housing number for Four Marks/South Medstead, is not, therefore, accepted.
3. Deliverability
While the NPPF requires LPAs to maintain a five year supply of housing sites (plus an additional buffer) it clarifies that;
“To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans.”
Nonetheless, paragraph 5.2 of the IHPS states that “The Council wants new homes delivered in the right places to meet the needs of the District the emphasis will be on sites being put forward under this Interim Policy Statement approach being deliverable at the time that they are put forward. Therefore detailed applications would be preferred and be accompanied by evidence of deliverability.
They should not, for example, be dependent upon delivery of significant off-site infrastructure; and should be fully in the applicant’s control. Those proposing development of a site are therefore encouraged to demonstrate a strong desire and willingness to develop it in the short term, with the necessary evidence to back up such statements.”
There are drainage constraints on the site and known capacity issues with utilities provision on this northern part of the settlement. No assurances over the deliverability of the scheme have been provided in the application submission and as the application has been submitted in outline, with only access to be considered, officers are not satisfied that the development could be brought forward within two years in accordance with the IHPS. This factor weighs heavily against the scheme.
Mix and type of housing
The development includes 40% affordable housing which reflects local needs in terms of unit sizes and tenures and satisfies the policy requirement set out in Core Strategy policy, CP13. The affordable mix includes 2 x 1 bedroomed houses; 4 x 2 bedroom houses and 3 x 3 bedroom houses. The tenure split would secure 33% of affordable units as shared ownership and 66% for affordable rent.
Market housing also provides a reasonable range of unit sizes given the scale of the development and of 14 market units, includes 2 x 1 bedroomed houses; 2 x 2 bedroom houses; 3 x 3 bedroom houses and 6 x 4 bedroom houses. The overall mix by size is: 4 x 1 bedroom (18%) 6 x 2 bedroom (27%) 6 x 3 bedroom (27%) 6 x 4 bedroom (27%)
This mix provides a balance across all unit sizes but it does not favour the smaller sized properties identified in the recent (2013) Strategic Housing Market Assessment, which identifies strong demographic pressures towards decreasing average household size and an ageing population adding demand for downsizing. On this issue, the proposal is considered to be unjustified as it does appropriately provide for the housing requirements of the area.
The indicative plan shows that the 9 affordable units would be grouped alongside Lymington Bottom Road. Policy CP13 requires affordable housing to be pepper-potted through sites.
4. Impact on the character and landscape of the area
Lymington Bottom Road has low density residential development, which becomes increasingly rural in character away from the A31. The site and the area around the crossroads adjoining the site has a strongly rural character. Housing to the west and east of the site is set in spacious plots and is low in density.
The application would be accessed from a single entrance point on Lymington Bottom Road, which is at odds with the area as each property has its own access. Existing dwellings front the road, whereas the proposed development would lose that pattern, with the indicative plan showing an estate type layout and dwellings backing onto Lymington Bottom and Soldridge Road. The scheme includes housing with a density of approximately, 11 dwellings per hectare.
Whilst approval of layout and design are not sought a this stage, it is evident that with a single access and the numbers of dwellings proposed, the development would be more suburban in form and out of keeping with the strongly linear and rural character of the area. Such a form of development would be in stark contrast to the area and consequently detract from the landscape of the area. There is currently a gentle bleeding between the lower density housing and the open countryside. This proposal would result in a more stark, hard-edged interface between an estate/suburban housing development and the countryside, which is considered harmful to the character of the area. This would conflict with Core Strategy policy CP20, which requires proposals to conserve or enhance landscape character and distinctiveness. It also fails against policy CP29 (Design) which requires proposals to demonstrate they make a positive contribution to the area and take account of village design statements.
The IHPS (criterion 10) favours an approach, whereby development maximises the potential of a site and schemes should make efficient use of the site. However, there is a need for proposals to be balanced against criterion 11 of the IHPS, which requires proposals to demonstrate a density and design approach that is sensitive to the local character. It is considered that the greater weight should be placed on the need to conserve local character. The need to provide housing to meet the district’s shortfall should not be achieved at the expense of local distinction and there is a sufficient policy base in the NPPF and the JCS to oppose the application on this issue.
5. Access, movement and highway safety
The Highways Officer has raised no objection based on the access achieving necessary visibility splays. It is added that the indicative layout appears to be of an adoptable standard and that parking levels would be acceptable.
It is though noted that the Officer refers to the distance of the site from schools which would be beyond walking distance. There would be a need for a footpath along Lymington Bottom Road to link the site with bus services on Winchester Road and that contributions required in- line with the County Council’s Transport Contributions Policy would be used towards this. The applicant’s Transport Assessment refers to a willingness to fund or enter a S278 Agreement to provide this and has provided a suggested plan for this link. This plan, however, would require pedestrians to cross Lymington Bottom Road at five points before reaching the footpath at Station Approach. This is not suitable and no assurances over the deliverability of this, or other schemes, have been provided. Even if a path could be aligned more appropriately, there are considerations in respect of impact on the character of the lane (including lighting) that need to be fully considered and evidence regarding its deliverability should be secured as part of an application.
In any event, provision of a footpath is not considered to overcome the locational constraint of the site as it is not likely to significantly reduce vehicle movements from the site or significantly reduce existing vehicle movement numbers from existing properties along Lymington Bottom. The main services in the village would still be beyond a ten minute walk.
6. Drainage and flood risk
The site is within Flood Zone 1 (low probability, identified as having a less than 1 in 1000 year risk of flooding). However, flood mapping indicates potential for surface water flooding which is amplified in the objection comments received. The proposal will result in increased surface water run-off which must be controlled on site. The desktop based study proposes a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS). However, as the Drainage Consultant notes, the site lies on clay over chalk bedrock which may prevent the suitability of this approach. The proposed siting of the pond in the area shown to be at flood risk is also a concern. In the absence of a full drainage report and geotechnical site investigation, it has not been demonstrated that the development could be carried out without ameliorating this issue. This consequently is a reason for refusal of the application.
With respect to foul drainage, the scheme would connect to a sewerage treatment plant which requires Environment Agency consent. The EA have not raised an objection to the application. Thames Water has advised that there is insufficient capacity in the sewerage system.
7. Impact on ecology
The main ecological interest at the site are the boundary hedgerows and the use of the site by pigs has likely further diminished any ecological value in the field. An additional Great crested Newt survey has been submitted which states the site has no use by this species.
There are no records of hazel dormice at the site but the boundary hedgerows offer suitable habitat for that species. The development, therefore, has potential to indirectly impact on the species if they are present in the vicinity. There are known populations in the South Medstead area and potential impacts need to be considered, especially as there is a large section of hedgerow to be removed to provide visibility splays. Similarly, there was little detail submitted on potential impact to roosting bats.
It is considered that the impact on protected species has not been properly assessed and this could not be adequately covered by condition, as the potential harm or any necessary mitigation has not been established.
8. Impact on neighbouring amenity
Concerns have been received that the proposal would result in harm to privacy of nearby residential dwellings. The nearest private dwellings are opposite the site on Soldridge Road and on the Lymington Bottom Road. The site is separated from these properties by hedgerows which would be retained and which would minimise impacts. There would likely be an increase in noise and light but this is not considered to have an over-riding concern. The application does not include details of layout or design and detailed proposals could further ameliorate impacts on neighbours.
9. Infrastructure and developer contributions
The three tests as set out in Regulation 122(2) require S.106 agreements to be:
(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly-related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
As the application proposes the provision of 22 additional residential units, in order for the development to be acceptable in planning terms, a S.106 agreement is required to secure the following:
− integrated transport measures (£87,847.00) − community facilities (£12,824.00) − public open space towards recreational playing space and children's play space (£31,050.00)
The HCC Education officer has responded and advised that contributions are necessary towards supporting and expanding primary school facilities. A contribution per unit is sought and would provide a substantial but commensurate contribution to local requirements, in line with County Council guidance on contributions - £116,311.00 towards primary places.
A S.106 legal agreement covering any planning permission would also secure the following: - provision and maintenance in perpetuity of landscape planting and ecology buffers - matters of general management and maintenance in perpetuity of other common areas including of the access and estate roads, surface water drainage - tenure split for affordable housing, - occupancy criteria stipulating a cascade for occupancy of affordable rent units within the settlement, then the parishes of Medstead and Four Marks and then wider to the district.
Other considerations
The County Archaeologist has highlighted the proximity of the site to the Winchester - London Roman road which may result in archaeological deposits being present on the site. Whilst there is not considered to be a direct impact on archaeology remains, a condition in the event of an approval requiring an archaeological evaluation and methodology would be required.
A desktop ground contamination report has been submitted and assessed. This identified the potential presence of a number of contaminants and therefore a full site investigation will need to be undertaken. This though, together with any necessary remedial works could be made conditional to any planning permission.
Response to Parish/Town Council Comments
The site falls within the parish of Medstead although it is clearly associated with Four Marks, whose settlement boundary it adjoins. The core concerns raised by Medstead and Four Marks Parish Councils have been addressed in the foregoing report, but it clear that issues relating to infrastructure provision in the area is a considerable concern locally.
Conclusion
The site is in an area of countryside where policies of constraint apply. The NPPF and JCS Policy CP1 advocate a presumption in favour of sustainable development unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
In the light of the IHPS, the proposal has the potential to bring forward a scheme which would contribute towards the shortfall in the Council's five year housing land supply. In addition, nine of the proposed dwellings would be affordable, which contributes towards an identified need in the settlement.
However, the site is poorly associated with the settlement, which, together with access constraints renders the site unsustainably located. The application is in outline only which fails to provide reassurances that the scheme can be delivered within two years.
Regard is also given to the impact of the proposal on top of existing permitted housing provision on the infrastructure of the small local service centre. The development would take new housing numbers on 'greenfield' sites in the settlement to 213. The local plan inspector identified 175 as a minimum figure for the settlement over the plan period (to 2028) and it is considered that over-supply at an early stage in the plan is not a sustainable approach to development, bearing in mind pressure on utilities as well as the social dimension of sustainability. Applications currently under consideration by the Council, focused on more sustainable settlements ie market towns and larger local service centres, have the potential to far exceed the deficit and buffer required to achieve a five-year housing land supply.
The benefits of housing provision (including affordable dwellings) in meeting the district wide shortfall are outweighed by the impact of over-supply at the early stage of the plan period on the small local service centre.
The site is in an area which has a clearly defined linear, low density and rural character. The application would introduce a suburban and higher density form at odds with the established character. The resulting development would materially harm the character of the area, contrary to the NPPF, Joint Core Strategy and the IHPS.
RECOMMENDATION
REFUSAL for the following reasons:
1 The level of development proposed would not be consistent with maintaining and enhancing the character of the settlement but instead would place undue pressure on the limited range of local services in this small local service centre. This would be at odds with the spatial strategy for the district which seeks to reinforce a settlement's role and function. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CP1, CP2 and (non housing target aspects of) CP10 of the Joint Core Strategy and the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014.
2 The area is characterised by low density and linear residential development merging with open countryside. The development lies beyond the settlement policy boundary and would result in a significant increase in development at odds with the settlement pattern and result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CP1, CP19, CP20 of the East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy, policies and CP10 of the Joint Core Strategy and the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement.
3 The proposed development is situated on the edge of the settlement, divorced from the main services, schools and transport links in Four Marks. It is, therefore, not a sustainably located site which would result in the increase use of private transport. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and policies CP1, CP19 and CP31 of the East Hampshire District Council Joint Core Strategy.
4 The proposed housing mix does not meet the identified demand for housing in the area which is heavily weighted towards smaller house types. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 50) and Joint Core Strategy policy CP13.
5 No provision has been made towards integrated transportation measures with the proposal, contrary to Policies CP31 and CP32 of the East Hampshire District Joint Core Strategy, the Interim Housing Policy Statement and the Council's 'Guide to Developers' Contributions and Other Planning Requirements'.
6 No provision has been made towards environmental improvements, contrary to Policy CP32 of the East Hampshire District Joint Core Strategy, the Interim Housing Policy Statement and the Council's 'Guide to Developers' Contributions and Other Planning Requirements'.
7 No provision has been made for public open space within the proposal contrary to Policies CP18 and CP32 of the East Hampshire District Joint Core Strategy, the Interim Housing Policy Statement and the Councils 'Guide to Developers Contributions and Other Planning Requirements'. 8 No provision has been made for a financial contribution to be made towards education facilities within the Parishes of Medstead where there is a recognised shortage of school spaces contrary to Policy CP32 of the East Hampshire District Joint Core Strategy, the Interim Housing Policy Statement and the Councils 'Guide to Developers Contributions and Other Planning Requirements'.
9 Without a Section 106 legal agreement or unilateral undertaking from the applicant agreeing to the following additional provisions (set out in full in the officers report) an objection is raised in accordance with policy CP13, CP18 and CP32 of the Joint Core Strategy and the Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014:
• Securing at least 40% affordable housing provision on-site • Contribution towards local community facilities
10 The proposal fails to show that significant harm would not be caused to protected species known to be present in the locality, contrary to policy CP21 of the East Hampshire District Joint Core Strategy 2014.
Informative Notes to Applicant:
1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach and works with applicants/agents on development proposals in a manner focused on solutions by:
• offering a pre-application advice service,
• updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,
• by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter. In this instance the applicant was provided with pre-application advice and was updated of issues after the initial site visit.
CASE OFFICER: Jon Holmes 01730 234243 ——————————————————————————————————————— SECTION 1 Item 02 Land to the north of the Telephone Exchange, Lymington Bottom Road, Medstead, Alton
Illustrative site plan