7. 13/00034/FULLN (PERMISSION) 08.01.2013 11 - 69 SITE: Land At Former Andover Airfield, Road, Andover, PENTON MEWSEY / ANDOVER TOWN (MILLWAY) / MONXTON

CASE OFFICER: Jason Owen

8. 13/00303/FULLN (PERMISSION) 13.02.2013 70 - 92 SITE: Manor Farm, Finkley Road, Finkley,

CASE OFFICER: Gregg Chapman

9. 12/02765/FULLN (PERMISSION) 21.12.2012 93 - 117 SITE: Land To The Rear Of Roxtons (formerly Viva), High Street, Stockbridge, STOCKBRIDGE

CASE OFFICER: Lucy Page

11. 13/00716/FULLN (PERMISSION) 04.04.2013 137 - 156 SITE: Land Off Trafalgar Way, Stockbridge, , STOCKBRIDGE

CASE OFFICER: Sarah Appleton

______

APPLICATION NO. 13/00034/FULLN SITE Land At Former Andover Airfield, Monxton Road, Andover, PENTON MEWSEY / ANDOVER TOWN (MILLWAY) / MONXTON COMMITTEE DATE 30th May 2013 ITEM NO. 7 PAGE NO. 11 - 69 ______

1.0 CLARIFICATION/CORRECTIONS 1.1 Para 4.6 – Reference number “09/02729/OUTN” omitted in error.

1.2 Para 5.5 – reference to “Appendix B” relates to comments provided by the HCC Highways (Para 5.4) and not TVBC Highway Engineers.

1.3 The legal agreement referred to in the Recommendation would simply bind the current proposed development to the provisions contained in the legal agreement for the 09/02392/OUTN permission for the Business Park. The provisions include: Landscaping; Community Land; Public art; Sustainable development; Noise mitigation and off-site noise fencing; Training and Development contribution and Construction Apprenticeship scheme; Training and Development contribution and Construction Apprenticeship scheme; Highways (Highway contributions and Highway works); and Transportation, Travel and Access Measures (these include a Site Travel Plan / HCV Traffic Demand management / on-site access for HCV‟s, the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system; Barred routes - access restrictions to Monxton Road; barred route contribution; A338 restriction limit).

1.4 Recommended condition 18 has a sentence missing „The scheme shall also include a management scheme for restricting reversing alarm noise disturbance at other times‟. This has now been included in the amended recommendation.

2.0 AMENDMENTS 2.1 Amended plans: 24.05.13 (clarification on erection of 7.5m fence to eastern boundary on proposed site layout plan)

2.2 Amended landscape plan: 24.05.13 (replacement of Ash with Hornbeam)

3.0 VIEWING PANEL 3.1 A Viewing Panel was undertaken on the morning of the 29th May 2013. Members in attendance: Cllrs Brooks, Boulton, Flood, Giddings, Hawke and Lovell.

4.0 CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Highways Agency: No objections

1

4.2 x33 letters: Object (22 and 27 Sunnybank, Monxton Mill, Dingley Dell, Brewery House, Corner Cottage, Willow Glen, Rectory Cottage, Meadow Lodge, Little Thatch, The Willows, The Chesters, Saddlers Cottage, Glebe Cottage, Spinney Hill, Glebe Cottage, The Old Farmhouse, Meadow View, Old Hoyles, Springfield, Fourways Cottage, Monks Foyle Cottage, School House, The Owls, Kingsbrook, Monxton; The Old Farm, Little Bec, The Cottage on the Green, The New Beeches, ; Norfolk House, ; Bracondale, Penton Harroway; 18 Conholt Road and 6b Shaw Close Andover)

Traffic and highway matters  More traffic congestion and vehicles taking the „wrong‟ route.  Heavy vehicle movements originally imposed are still regularly flouted resulting in truck movements through Monxton. Should this development proceed it is essential that the same restrictions are applied and enforced.  Already too many of the lorries from the existing development are coming through our village(Monxton) when they are not supposed to. The road is too narrow and the roadside and hedging is being destroyed as well as proving desperately dangerous for young children as there is no kerb. Many houses have front doors straight onto the street. The streets, greens, trees and properties have been damaged by HGV‟s travelling through the village, both frequently and at speed. There is a danger to pedestrians and other road users. The proposal will increase these problems.  Andover has a number of business parks which have been created with infrastructure to support large vehicles and increased traffic levels. These industrial sites, which no doubt have numerous empty units, are much more suited to this kind of development.  HGV‟s using Monxton Road as a shortcut has had a major impact on the Monxton Conservation Area and the village in general, aggravated by the „improvements‟ at which removed the weight limit.  What guarantee is there that further traffic calming measures on the Monxton Road will happen?  Routes into and out of the area along the A303, A34, A342, and the A343 are already overloaded to almost breaking point and additional HGV,s would bring the road grid to a halt. There is „rat running‟ and speeding through surrounding villages to avoid the log jams. With a projected increase of employees working in three shifts would only make the situation considerably worse. There will be an extremely dangerous mixing of local traffic (e.g. mothers taking and collecting children from school) and possibly up to 3000 traffic movements of very large HGV‟s. There will be further unacceptable impact on many beautiful Hampshire villages with listed buildings that have no firm foundations and many of which reside in conservation areas.  Impact on Monxton Road, local roads and A303  Increases traffic accident risk on A303 and adjoining roundabouts.  Design of new roundabout difficult to follow and dangerous, causing

2

near-misses. There are collisions nearly every day. Lanes are far too narrow to safely accommodate 3 or 4 lorries abreast.  Traffic generation parking and safety.

Amenity concerns  The night-time lighting levels are unacceptable.  The night-time noise levels for houses at Red Post Lane are unacceptable.  The existing permission has a layout in which Unit 5 provides some shielding against operational noise and light. The new layout dispenses with this shielding by allowing site traffic and operations around the SW outside corner of the proposed buildings. Unit 5 had loading bays facing away from Red Post Lane properties so as to minimise noise from manoeuvring vehicles. Even with acoustic fencing there will be an unacceptable increase in noise for residents. Opening the possibility of refridgerated storage will cause further noise nuisance.  In an effort to present the noise predictions in a favourable light, Chapter 10 on Noise quotes PPG24 which is old (1994) and no longer relevant. The world has moved on considerably since 1994 and also since 2008, when the Tesco predictions referred to in Chapter 10 were made, notably in the publication in a new set of WHO guidelines for night-time noise (WHO 2009) which recommend a limit of L-night,outside of 40dB, which is 5dB lower than the WHO 2000 recommendations which themselves were lower than the WHO levels that preceded them. There is a clear trend towards decreasing the acceptable limits as the physical and psychological effects of night-time noise become better understood. WHO 2009 says (p19):

adverse health effects are observed at the level above 40 dB of Lnight,outside, such as self-reported sleep disturbance, environmental insomnia, and increased use of somnifacient drugs and sedatives.

The WHO 2009 report also gives a comprehensive summary of the new (since 2000) evidence about the effects of night noise. Having given the WHO 2009 report a passing reference, Chapter 10 then ignores it and continues to quote the higher WHO 2000 recommended limits in paras. 10.67 & 10.79 et seq and in Table 10.14, when use of the WHO 2009 limits would place the comparisons in a less favourable light, especially if the development noise had been properly assessed.

 Section 10.72 says that no penalty for acoustic character has been applied to the predicted noise levels, but surely it should have been when one component of the noise is from reversing bleepers. The list of operational noise sources (Table 10.9) does not include either reversing bleepers or the rattling of cages put in/out of the lorries.  Although there may have been an assumption that the lorries are using broad-spectrum reversing warnings, this assumption is not necessarily valid, especially with suppliers‟ lorries.

3

 The experience of residents in Red Post Lane is that reversing bleepers are audible at night from the existing Coop development which is much further away than the proposed Unit 5.  This chapter does not include any measurements of the noise levels at the receptor sites since the Coop distribution centre became fully operational. Instead, it is assumed that the calculations made in 2008 on the effects of this development are entirely valid and give a measure of the extant ambient noise situation when they do not.

 Surely it would have been prudent to have checked that the calculations made in 2008 were valid, especially as the same methodology is being used to assess the impact of the latest proposal, and to check that the acoustic fencing installed since 2008 has produced the forecast attenuation?  Table 10.5 quotes figures for post-development noise experienced at 19 Monxton Road (receptor 5) and references the calculations in the extant permission. However, as previously pointed out to TVBC, these calculations were erroneous as they did not consider the significant noise from lorries from the business park travelling around the revised 100-Acre roundabout and then onto the slip road in order to access the A303(E). The slip road is much closer to receptor 5 than the A303 itself (which is also in a cutting here) and will be the major noise source during some hours of the night. A proper assessment of the increase in night noise is urgently needed here. The night noise levels here are already way above the WHO recommendations and it is unacceptable that TVBC appear to have so little considerations for the residents here.  There is a serious risk that night noise from a 24hr distribution centre at Unit 5 will further diminish the quality of life of nearby residents. TVBC should make use of the NPPF clause which states that “planning decisions should ... mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from new development, including through the use of conditions” to prohibit night activity at any distribution centre on this plot.  Increased light pollution, high level lighting (13 metres) is required which will cause considerable light pollution. The current Coop warehouse lighting is already intrusive, the proposed level of lighting so close to the houses on Red Post Lane will cause disturbance to the residents, as will lights from vehicles circulating around the site.  Additional traffic utilising the A303 – additional noise not addressed to date.  Scale and bulk results in loss of light.  Overlooking.  Air pollution.

Impact on area

4

 Development out of keeping and too big for area.  Landscape – the proposed building is taller and more intrusive than the original Unit 5. The proposed development will be clearly visible to residents on Red Post Lane and from Amport and parts o Monxton, as well as ruining many of the views from all the surrounding villages and parishes. The low density deciduous planting provides very little coverage, even in the long term.  The overall appearance of the site will also be diminished by the proposed 5.5 m or 7.5 m acoustic fencing.

5

Other matters  Availability of labour from the new housing estates near Walworth Business Park.  Empty units in Walworth Business Park.  Affect house prices.  Only one form of renewable energy (solar thermal tubes) seems to be proposed which is poor form.  Need for development not demonstrated.  Difficult to get planning permission for extensions to dwellings so “unfair the planning permission could be given to a development that will result in houses being devalued.  The acoustic fencing for the A303 has not yet materialised.  The proposals are not in line with the stated purpose of the Andover Business Park and do not provide the type of employment needed in Andover. Should be smaller industrial units to provide a range of jobs across various industries.  the revised site layout, with 90% of the site allocated to B8, is nothing like the example (from Hatfield) shown to the PCC in December 2008 by Goodman as an illustration of their capability at producing a mixed- use business park – this had around 30% allocated to storage and distribution.  Andover does not need another 800+ storage and distribution jobs but does need much more diversity in employment opportunities. It can be noted that the demographic projections produced for the LDF Core Strategy show a very slow growth in the number of working-age people in the borough over the next 20 years, so there is no urgent need for just any form of job. There are not enough local people to fill the jobs at the Coop.  TVBC evidently believes that new businesses will be attracted to an 11 ha greenfield extension at Walworth and it should insist that Goodman make greater effort to attract similar businesses to the vast area of vacant greenfield land at Andover Business Park.

4.3 x1 letter - Comments from Shoetree Cottage, Monxton  Whilst not objecting would comment about traffic.The current Coop development adjacent to the proposed one, along with the steel producing business in the opposite direction, is already causing problems with very large vehicles using narrow lanes and evidently casuing some damage to property. I feel that if this development goes ahead there should be a restriction on the size of vehicles permitted to drive through Monxton and surrounding villages.

6

4.4 x1 letter – Support? from Dene Cottage Monxton.  Submission states stance as in support of application however comments submitted are as follows: Reason for comments = Character of Area, Design, Noise, Traffic Generation Parking and safety; and commenting „This application further impacts the quality of life for local residents. The true nature of the site – a distribution centre – with high levels of traffic, noise and environmental impact is now being realised, as opposed to a business park that was the developers claimed intention‟. 5.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Amended site layout plan The receipt of amended plans referred to in Para 2.1 above simply rectifies an inconsistency between plans submitted. The change only affects the height of the fence shown along the Eastern boundary of the service yard. A 7.5m high fence is proposed which is consistent with the originally submitted Landscape drawings and sections. Conditions 3, 4, 6 and 13 are amended to refer to this latest revised plan.

5.2 It should be noted that the conclusions reached in the applicant‟s Noise Assessment (in so far as it relates to Red Post Lane) have been based on a fence 5.5m tall. As the height of the fence has been „increased‟ in this location it is considered that the conclusions summarised in the main agenda report at 8.19 – 8.22 inclusive (and at Appendix A) concerning the effect of noise, to the nearest neighbours at Red Post Lane, is expected to be less than stated. Condition 3 is amended to refer to this latest revised plan.

5.3 Amended Landscape Drawing The omission of Ash from the proposed planting schedule simply acknowledges recent concerns over Ash die-back disease. The effectiveness of the landscaping scheme by utilising Hornbeam as it‟s replacement is not materially affected. The use of Hornbeam was suggested by the Council‟s Landscape Officer.

5.4 Third party objections Since the NAPC report was written a number of additional third party comments have been received. Many of the comments have been addressed in the NAPC report. However there was a substantial technical third party objection received that raised a number of issued associated with noise and lighting. This letter has been the subject of further consultation with the Council‟s Environment & Health Officer who has provided comment on the issues raised as follows:

5.5 New layout dispenses the shielding against operational noise and light “The extant permission did provide some screening to the occupiers at Red Post Lane by virtue of its layout. We have carefully considered the new scheme and although we note the differences, the level of protection offered to residents in noise terms is virtually identical when the two proposals are compared. This takes into account the mitigation afforded by the new covered HGV route on the south west of the building as well as the barriers

7

(incorporating a 7.5m high acoustic fence) and bunding”.

5.6 Commentary on the World Health Orgnisation 2009 report “The WHO document referred to states that it is “complimentary” to the 1999 guidelines in that both propose that the sound level and number of noise events should be taken into account, so even a level of 45dB Laeq outside must be considered in this context.

The absolute noise levels at Red Post Farm with plots 2, 4 and 5 operational is predicted to be 37.3dB (Laeq,5mins) which is clearly below the particular levels discussed in both documents.

In addition, likely compliance with the internal 30 dB guideline (which has not been revised down) is surely what counts most for night time exposure . That is equivalent to an outdoor level of 40 dB with a window open (allowing 10-15 dB reduction on the outdoor level)”.

5.7 Applicability of BS4142 penalty [The PHEO’s] “comments dated 7th May 2013 discussed the merits of the acoustic feature penalty for BS4142 in this situation. In the end, it was indeed assumed this penalty should be attributable and the impact with its inclusion is presented in section 6 and discussed further in section 7.

In terms of reversing alarms the day time rating levels were very low indeed, not of concern and a condition is proposed prohibiting the use of bleeper type reversing alarms at night.

The Co-op do not use such bleepers routinely at all and are not permitted to do so at night, but if/when they do, it is inadvertent and likely to be very infrequently”.

5.8 Validation of noise results from co-op operations “This was discussed at the pre-app stage and some survey work was done, but was not sufficiently conclusive to be helpful. We considered whether this ought to be a requirement but decided that it was not necessary. The Red Post Farm receptor is the receptor likely to be most affected by the Plot 5. With respect to the impact on that receptor by the operating Plot 4 (Co-op) Mark Lee has carried out monitoring since the Co-op has been operating and has found that, even in light northerly winds at night, noise from the Co-op has been very low indeed at the receptors close to Red Post Farm, too low to measure reliably in fact at that point. “

5.9 Assessment of road traffic noise “The method for predicting noise impact from road traffic has previously been considered and was checked on TVBC’s behalf by an external consultant. It takes very large percentage traffic changes to produce even small noise changes”.

8

5.10 Night time noise levels “The investigations into predicted night time noise levels show that the developer has put forward a proposal which in real terms will have a virtually indistinguishable impact compared to the previously approved “Tesco” scheme and allows noise levels in the local area at night to remain under WHO guidelines”.

5.11 External Lighting “A lighting scheme is yet to be agreed and can be dealt with by condition. Due to the boundary screening and relative heights, I do not believe that lights from individual HGVs would be significant”.

9

5.12 The applicant‟s agent has confirmed (email of the 24.05.13) that “the lower height end of the range of lighting that could be installed on the plot would be 8m-10m. However it is not possible to be definitive until the specific requirements of an occupier are known. Therefore, your proposed Condition 9 is considered to offer an appropriate means of managing the final specification”.

5.13 The effect of a proposed development on property values is not a material planning consideration.

5.14 In order to comply with recent legislative requirements an additional note to applicant (No.7) is added to the recommendation concerning the proactive and positive approach to be taken with development proposals.

5.15 Impact of noise arising from Business Park traffic on the A303 The applicants are currently progressing the installation of fencing in identified (and agreed) locations on the northern side of the A303 as a consequence of Obligations imposed under planning permission 09/02392/OUTN. The applicant is currently working with the Borough Council to resolve this matter on land that it owns.

6.0 AMENDED RECOMMENDATION Delegated to the Head of Planning and Building that subject to the completion of an appropriate legal agreement binding the development to the provisions of the existing legal agreement for the 09/02392/OUTN business park permission then PERMISSION subject to Conditions1,2,5,7-12, 14-17 and19 and notes 1-6 of the agenda report recommendation, amended conditions 3,4,6,13 and 18 and additional note to applicant 7 as follows:

3. The landscape areas shall be maintained for a period of 10 years in accordance with a Landscape Management Plan that shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied until such time as the landscaping areas (including the provision of “landscape mounding”) as shown on Drw.No.NK016964_SK032 Rev E) has been completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. All structural landscaping (including the formation of bunding) as shown on the Barry Chinn Associates (BCA) “Unit 5 Landscape Masterplan” (Drw.No.01 Rev H), supporting detailed landscaping plans and cross sections (Drw.No.02 Rev D and Drw.No03 Rev D), all of which are hereby approved, shall be carried out in accordance with the detailed specifications contained in these drawings. Reason: To ensure the correct phasing of development relative to the implementation of the required landscaping, in the interests of minimising the landscape impact of development hereby approved. In accordance with Policies AND04.2 and DES10 of the

10

Borough Local Plan (2006).

11

4. The development on this site shall be carried out in substantial accordance with the design principles and development objectives included within the 'Environmental Statement' and as shown on the 'Proposed site Layout plan' (Drw.No.NK16964_SK032 Rev E). Reason: The proposed development is the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment and any material alteration to the proposed development may have an impact which has not been assessed by that process, having regard to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) ( and Wales) Regulations 1999.

6. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the car and lorry parking areas, including disabled parking spaces and cycle storage provision, shall be provided in accordance with the Proposed site layout plan (Drw.No.NK016964_SK032 Rev E). The vehicle spaces shall thereafter be retained and reserved solely for the parking of vehicles. Reason: To ensure car and cycle parking exists to serve the occupiers of Plot 4 without detriment to the safety and free flow of other road users, in accordance with Policy TRA09 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan.

13. The emergency access road joining Red Post Lane as shown in detail on 'Proposed Site Layout plan' (Drw.No.NK16964_SK032 Rev E) shall only be used for pedestrian and cyclists, and for vehicles responding to an emergency and for no other purpose. Reason: To control the nature, frequency and type of movements onto/through Red Post Lane in the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy TRA09 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan (2006).

18. Prior to the occupation of the development a scheme for the proposed operation of HGV reversing alarms between 2300 and 0700 hours shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of broadband type reversing alarms and a programme for use of broadband type reversing alarms, or confirmation that the alarms shall be turned off during this period. In the event of the latter full details of how the operator of that particular unit shall ensure that the health and safety of workers is not compromised shall also be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall also include a management scheme for restricting reversing alarm noise disturbance at other times. Development shall be in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure suitable measures, and an appropriate timescale for implementation, are in place to minimise night time noise impact on nearby residents in accordance with Policy AME04 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan (2006).

12

Notes to applicant

7. In reaching this decision Test Valley Borough Council (TVBC) has had regard to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework and takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. TVBC work with applicants and their agents in a positive and proactive manner offering a pre-application advice service and updating applicants/agents of issues that may arise in dealing with the application and where possible suggesting solutions.

13

______

APPLICATION NO. 13/00303/FULLN SITE Finkley Manor Farm, Finkley Road, Finkley, SMANNELL COMMITTEE DATE 30th May 2013 ITEM NO. 8 PAGE NO. 70 - 92

1.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1.1 The agent has confirmed via email dated 30.05.2013 that the existing access which runs along the eastern boundary of the site will not be used to access the storage business and does form part of the application.

2.0 AMENDMENTS 2.1 An additional note has been added on the requirement for the applicant to complete a S278 Agreement with Hampshire County Council in relation to the provision of additional passing places on Finkley Road which are required as part of condition 5.

3.0 AMENDED RECOMMENDATION 3.1 PERMISSION subject to conditions 1 – 9 and notes to the applicant 1 – 4 of the agenda report recommendation and additional note 5.

5. Condition 5 above will require the completion of an Agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980. You should view Hampshire County Council’s document Section 278 Highway Work, Procedure and Processes which can be found on the HCC website.

14

______

APPLICATION NO. 12/02765/FULLN SITE Land To The Rear Of Roxtons (formerly Viva), High Street, Stockbridge, STOCKBRIDGE COMMITTEE DATE 30th May 2013 ITEM NO. 9 PAGE NO. 93 - 117

1.0 AMENDMENTS 1.1 Paragraph 3.2 of the agenda report should be amended to read; An application for a 3 bedroom dwelling was refused in 2011 for a 3 bedroom property with the following dimensions: 10.6m x 9.5m max, and minimum of 10.6 x 7.6m. The roof ridge height was approximately 7.1 metres. The approximate footprint of this refused scheme is 87.23sqm ground floor and 80.56sqm at first floor.

1.2 The approximate footprint of the current scheme is 91sqm. No first floor accommodation is proposed.

15

______

APPLICATION NO. 13/00716/FULLN SITE Land Off Trafalgar Way, Stockbridge, Hampshire COMMITTEE DATE 30th May 2013 ITEM NO. 11 PAGE NO. 137 - 156

1.0 AMENDED PLANS 1.1 Amended plan received on 18 April 2013 updating the drainage information shown on the original site plan.

2.0 CONSULTATIONS 2.1 Trees - No Objection subject to conditions.

3.0 REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 1 x letter from the occupier of Little Wharf, High Street, Stockbridge supporting the application:

“To me it makes good sense to infill sites where applicable and the revised plans for two dwellings with access from Trafalgar Way should be much more acceptable to anyone who may be affected.”

4.0 LEGAL AGREEMENT 4.1 A legal agreement securing financial contributions towards public open space and sustainable highways initiatives has been completed.

5.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Trees The Tree Officer has not raised any objections to the proposal. With regards to the trees situated at the entrance of the site, bridge abutment work has already been completed and additional surfacing will be required. The Tree Officer is satisfied that provided this surfacing work is installed as per the submitted details, there should be no adverse impacts on these trees.

5.2 In addition to the above, conditions should be added to any permission requiring the protection of the trees during the construction phase of development. The Tree Officer has suggested two conditions. It is considered that the details required by these suggested conditions have been adequately covered by condition 5 on the agenda report.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION No change.

16