PLANNING STATEMENT Bradley Farm | Bradley
Outline: Demolition of existing kennel buildings, former poultry farm buildings and associated hardstanding; erection of up to 7 new homes, open space and landscaping
Prepared on behalf of: Mr & Mrs P Bliss
Pro Vision Planning and Design October 2015 Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction 2
2.0 Planning History 3
3.0 The Proposed Scheme 5
4.0 Development Plan Context 6
5.0 National Planning Policy Framework 11
6.0 Material Considerations 14
7.0 Developer Contributions 16
8.0 Conclusions 17
APPENDICES
Appendix A Pre-application Enquiry
Appendix B Pre-application response
Appendix C Community Consultation feedback
1563 1 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
1.0 Introduction
1.1 This statement supports an outline planning application for the redevelopment of redundant land and buildings at Bradley Farm near Alresford. The proposed scheme seeks to deliver a ‘once and for all’ solution to a (part) brownfield site that is currently in poor condition, and consequently has an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the wider landscape, the character of the conservation area and the setting of nearby listed buildings. The Planning Statement briefly describes the site and its context and provides information about the Applicant and his vision. The proposed development is more fully described in the submitted Design and Access Statement. The Planning Statement therefore goes on to examine the Development Plan which currently comprises only the saved policies of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan (2006) for the purposes of Section 38 of the Act. It considers the weight that should be attached to the saved policies that are relevant to the determination of this application.
1.2 The Statement then examines other material considerations, including the emerging Local Plan, the Village Design Statement, and the 5 Year Housing Land Supply position. Finally the Statement assesses the Proposal against the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and draws the conclusion that planning permission should be granted having regard to Paragraph 14 of the NPPF.
1563 2 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
2.0 Planning History
2.1 The land and buildings at Bradley Farm have a long planning history. Whilst some of the planning consents are of no particular relevance when considering the proposals subject of this application, a number of the consents do have some relevance.
BDB/74472 Demolition of existing poultry building; conversion of 2 no poultry buildings to 2 no. eco live-work dwellings, landscaping and associated works Approved 4/1/2013
BDB/76837 Change of Use of Poultry building to Kennels and associated works Approved
BDB/76838 Change of Use of Kennels to Dwelling Approved
BDB/77583 Erection of replacement dwelling and car port following demolition of existing Approved 18/2/2014
Pre-application Advice
2.2 Pre-application advice was sought in November 2014 regarding the potential redevelopment of Bradley Farm and the former Gay Dogs Boarding Kennels site. A copy of this letter and the appendices is attached at Appendix A.
2.3 The Council responded in a letter dated 22 January 2015. The Council’s letter is attached at Appendix B.
2.4 In summary, the Council’s landscape officer has conecrns about the principle of a change of use from commercial to residential. The officer suggests that such a proposal will not maintain or enhance the landscape character and is therefore contrary to policy. However, the officer also acknowledges that the site provides an opportunity to enhance or reflect the local landscape character and the setting of the conservation area.
2.5 The Council’s conservation officer acknowledges that the existing buildings contribute negatively to the setting of the conservation area. Accordingly, the officer is supportive of proposals which improve the way the site contributes to the setting. The officer suggests that development is restricted to those areas of the site which are aleardy developed.
2.6 The highways authority, the drainage authority and the Council’s biodiversity team do not object in principle to the redevelopment of the site for housing.
2.7 The need for a contamination and acoustic assessments is recommended.
2.8 The planning officer recommends that large executive homes should be avoided in favour of a scheme which responds to the local character.
2.9 The planning officer concludes that whilst redevelopment is contrary to development plan policies, some residential development could be acceptable in accordance with the NPPF.
1563 3 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
Pre-application Meeting
2.10 The applicant and the applicants representatives met with the planning officer (Patricia Logie) at the Council Offices on 4 March 2015.
2.11 During the meeting, the planning officer agreed that the application site is cluttered and untidy. However, the officer suggested that the existing built form is not unusual and typical of what would expect to be found in rural areas. Thus she reiterated that the proposals are broadly contrary to policy.
2.12 However, she confirmed that a case for the removal of the existing buildings and their replacement with new dwellings could be made. The planning officer advised that the following should be considered in order to address the Council’s concerns:
Viability; Marketing; Landscape impact; Ecology; Trees; and Noise.
2.13 In closing the meeting, the officer confirmed that a case for the removal of the existing buildings and their replacement with new dwellings could be supported by officers if:
A viability report demonstrates that a given number of dwellings are required to help deliver the new kennels; Proposals will not harm the landscape characer; and proposals are otherwise acceptable in general planning terms.
Community Consultation
2.14 The applicant presented the proposals subject of this application to members of the public (at a meeting on 2 September 2015), explaining the background, the concept and the ‘once and for all’ approach to the redevelopment of the site. It was explained that the level of development proposed is necessary to fund the new kennels. In addition to the public meeting, details of the proposed scheme were circulated to all known households in the village via email. Prior to submission of this application, the applicant has received letters of support from 60% of all households, and no objections.
2.15 A summary of these responses are attached at Appendix C.
1563 4 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
3.0 The Proposed Scheme
3.1 The proposed scheme comprises the removal of approximately 3400sqm of redundant buildings, and a further 4000sqm of concrete hardstanding, and the erection of up to 7 new dwellings, landscaping, open space and associated works.
3.2 The viability appraisal prepared by Sturt & Co. clearly shows that without the proposed scheme, the permitted new kennels cannot happen. The viability appraisal concludes that the level of development proposed is essential to ensure the viable delivery of the new kennels to the south.
3.3 Both schemes will bring considerable environmental improvements to the immediate setting and the wider landscape.
3.4 Previous consents have established that the principle of residential use on this site is acceptable.
1563 5 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
4.0 Development Plan Context
4.1 The Development Plan for the area currently comprises the saved policies of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan. Technically it also includes the retained policies of the otherwise revoked South East Plan and the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan 1998 (saved policies), but none of these documents are of relevance to the proposal.
4.2 The Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan was adopted by the Council in 2006. By a direction dated 30th June 2009 certain Local Plan policies were saved by the Secretary of State. In the letter that accompanied the Saving Direction, GOSE confirmed that:
“The extension of saved policies listed in this Direction does not indicate that the Secretary of State would endorse these policies if presented to her as new policy. It is intended to ensure continuity in the plan led system and a stable planning framework locally, and in particular, a continual supply of land for development” and
“The exercise of extending saved policies is not an opportunity to delay DPD preparation. LPA’s should make good progress with local development frameworks according to the timescales in their local development schemes. Policies have been extended in the expectation that they will be replaced promptly and by fewer policies in DPDs.”
4.2 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) requires that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In determining planning applications an important consideration is therefore whether relevant Development Plan Policies are up to date. Notwithstanding the Saving Direction in 2009, many of the adopted Local Plan policies are now out of date, particularly as they relate to the provision of housing. In such circumstances, Paragraph 14 of the NPPF applies.
4.3 Even where saved Local Plan policies can still be considered to be up to date, because the Plan is not a Development Plan Document (adopted under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004), paragraph 215 of the NPPF applies and the weight to be given to its policies will therefore depend on the extent to which they are consistent with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan are to the policies in the framework, the greater the weight that can be given to them).
Adopted Borough Local Plan (July 2006) – saved policies
4.4 Following a protracted preparation process the Borough Local Plan was eventually adopted on July 2006, just 5 years before its plan end date of 2011. Whilst certain policies were saved as an interim measure by Direction of the Secretary of State in 2009, it is clear that much of the Local Plan, particularly relating to delivering an adequate supply of new houses, is now substantially out of date. The following policies however remain relevant to the determination of the planning application and can be regarded as broadly consistent with the NPPF (for the purposes of Paragraph 215).
4.8 The following saved saved policies of the Local Plan are considered relevant to this application:
Policy D5 (Residential and Other Development within Settlements) Policy D6 (New residential Accommodation in the Countryside)
1563 6 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
Policy D9 (Rural Brownfield Sites) Policy E1 (Development Control) Policy E6 (Landscape Character) Policy E7 (Nature/Biodiversity Conservation) Policy EC5 (Live-work units) Policy C1 (Section 106 Agreements) Policy C2 (Affordable Housing) Policy C3 (Housing Mix) Policy A1 (Car Parking)
4.9 Saved Policy D5 permits residential development within settlement boundaries where that development contributes to the social, economic and environmental well-being of the settlement. The site does not lie within the identified Settlement Policy Boundaries set out in Saved Policy D5.
4.10 Saved Policy D6 limits residential development in the countryside to one-for-one replacements of existing dwellings, conversions of existing buildings in certain circumstances, or on sites that comply with the requirements of Saved Policies D8 or D9. Saved Policy D9 is considered relevant, and states that the use of brownfield sites in sustainable locations outside of Settlement Policy Boundaries may be permitted.
4.11 Policy E1 sets out general development control criteria against which development proposals are to be assessed. It states:
“Proposals for new development will be permitted provided that they are of a high standard of design, make efficient use of land, respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and do not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. All development proposals should therefore:
Respond to the local context of buildings in terms of design, siting, density and spacing, reinforce attractive qualities of local distinctiveness and enhance areas of poor design; extensions should respect their host building Provide a comprehensive landscaping scheme, where appropriate, enabling the development to successfully integrate with the landscape and surrounds, and not result in the loss of or have a potentially adverse impact on protected trees; and Not generate traffic of a type or amount inappropriate for roads, properties or settlements in the locality, and provide safe and convenient access for all potential users, integrating into existing movement networks and open spaces; and Provide a co-ordinated and comprehensive scheme that does not prejudice the development of adjoining land; and Incorporate features to minimise the energy consumed in the construction and future use of the building, conserve water and minimise water use; and Create attractive public spaces, which are safe, minimise opportunities for crime, facilitate public enjoyment, and foster the legibility of the built environment; and Minimise the potential for pollution of air and soil and not create noise or light which harms living and working conditions or the public’s enjoyment of the built and natural environment.”
4.12 The planning application demonstrates that the proposed development complies fully with Policy E1. In particular:
The Design and Access Statement shows how the layout and design of the proposed housing has responded to the nature and character of the site and the surrounding area.
1563 7 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
The Design and Access Statement and the LVIA demonstrate that the proposed development has been carefully designed to ensure that there will be no adverse visual or landscape impact. The Arborcultural Impact Assessment confirms that the removal of trees and hedge rows has been minimised and that retained trees will be fully protected. The proposed landscaping scheme provides for extensive new tree and hedgerow planting to reinforce and extend the site’s existing landscape framework. It is shown that the proposed access arrangement can accommodate the traffic flows generated by the development. The proposed new homes will complete a comprehensive development plan for the site which is considered locally to be an eye-sore. The proposal includes attractive new areas of public open space. The Noise Assessment demonstrates that a satisfactory residential environment will be created, having regard to the adjoining kennel business.
4.13 Policies E2 and E3 consider the historic environment. Policy E2 states that development will not be permitted if it would adversely affect the setting of a historic building. Policy E3 is permissive of new development in or close to conservation areas where the proposals preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the conservation area.
4.14 The application site is close to several listed buildings. Existing buildings on the application site have an adverse affect on the setting of these listed buidlings. The proposed scheme will removethese ugly buildings and enhance the setting of the listed buildings.
4.15 The open space along the site frontage will be retained. The proposals will remove elements of built form, agri-industrial features and hardstanding which currently detract from the special character and appearance of the conservation area. Thus the proposals will deliver considerable enhancements to the local area and including a ‘sense of arrival’ into the village, and the setting of the conservation area.
4.16 Policy E6 is concerned to protect the landscape character and quality of the area. It states:
“Planning permission will only be granted where it is demonstrated that the proposals will be sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of the area concerned.”
4.17 Development proposals should contribute to the regeneration, restoration, repair or conservation of any landscape likely to be affected. In particular they should respect, and improve the following:
the particular qualities of the relevant Landscape Character Area as defined in the Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Assessment; and visual amenity and scenic quality; and the setting of a settlement, including important views to, across and out of settlements; and the local character of buildings and settlements, including important open areas; and trees, hedgerows, water features and other landscape elements and features; and historic landscapes, features and elements
Consideration will also be given to the impact that development would have on sense of place, sense of remoteness or tranquillity, and the quiet enjoyment of the landscape from public rights of way”
1563 8 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
4.18 The evolution of the development proposals was heavily influenced by the baseline landscape and visual assessment (LVIA). This concludes that the site is visually and physically well contained so that its redevelopment will not impact on the wider landscape setting of the village, with views of development limited. Localised, close range views will be enhanced by the removal of a group of dilapidated buildings, redundant paraphanalia, and hardstanding, and their replacement with a group of traditional dwellings which reflect the local character.
4.19 Both the LVIA and the ecological assessment also highlight the importance of the existing hedgerows and trees, which are a significant landscape feature locally and provide valuable habitats. The proposed development therefore allows for the existing hedgerow structure to be fully retained, reinforced and extended.
4.20 Policy E7 relates to biodiversity. It states:
“Development or a change of land use will be permitted where it will not have an adverse effect on protected species or the conservation status of priority species, harm the nature conservation interest of a statutory or non-statutory wildlife nature conservation site or lead to the loss or deterioration of a key habitat type or harm the integrity of linkages between such sites and habitats.
Proposals will be expected to conserve and, where possible, enhance the biodiversity of the receiving environment, taking into account the aims and targets of the UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plans. Where appropriate, planning conditions and obligations will be used to secure these requirements. In particular, the opportunity will be taken to secure the creation and management of features of the landscape that, by virtue of their linear and continuous structure or their function as ‘stepping stones’, are of major importance for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species.
The weight given to the protection of nature conservation interests will depend on the national or local significance and any statutory designation or protection applying to the site, habitat or species concerned. Where the public interest in favour of a proposal is deemed to outweigh harm to biodiversity, the local planning authority will require the use of the best practicable mitigation/compensation measures, which will be secured through planning conditions and planning obligations, as appropriate.
Applications for development must include adequate information to enable a proper assessment of the implications for biodiversity. It should be noted that adverse effects on nature conservation interests are not necessarily limited to the proposal site. Adjacent land, including that outside the local plan boundary, must also be considered.”
4.19 The planning application is supported by Phase 1 & 2 Ecological Assessments. The proposed development has been designed to fully incorporate all the Ecologist’s recommendations.
4.20 A Habitat Enhancement and Management Plan at reserved matters stage could provide details of planting for the residential areas, open spaces and wildlife areas and outline management of the open spaces and wildlife area for a given period of time.
4.21 Policy EC7 supports proposals which form part of a farm diversification scheme provided:
development should benefit economy of local area; buildings are appropriate for their rural location; and
1563 9 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
development will not generate inappropriate traffic levels
4.22 Saved Policy C1 of the Local Plan sets out the Council’s requirements for infrastructure and community facility contributions.
4.23 The Council’s affordable housing requirements are set out at Saved Policy C2 of the Local Plan. The Policy states that affordable housing should be sought from sites exceeding 0.2ha within settlements with fewer than 3,000 population. As a starting point for negotiations, proposals should seek to deliver 40% affordable housing in accordance with the Council’s requirements, comprising a mix of social rented and shared ownership properties.
4.24 Saved Policy C3 of the Local Plan states that new housing developments should aim to create mixed and inclusive communities, taking into account the scale of the development, the location of the site and housing needs. The policy requires that 30- 50% of market dwellings should be of 1 or 2 bedrooms with the highest proportion being sought on sites on or adjoining the centres of settlements including Basingstoke with a good or a reasonable range of services and public transport opportunities.
4.25 Saved Policy A1 of the Local Plan states that “parking for new development proposals will be flexibly assessed dependant on individual circumstances, using as a basis the car and other parking standards set out in the Council’s Parking Strategy and Standards Supplementary Planning Guidance”.
4.26 Saved Policy A2 of the Local Plan states that planning permission will only be granted for developments where cycling and walking infrastructure are integrated within the development and linked with surrounding networks.
4.27 Overall, it can therefore be concluded that the Proposal accords with those saved policies of the adopted Local Plan that are relevant and consistent with the NPPF.
1563 10 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
5.0 National Planning Policy Framework
5.1 Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that housing proposals should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is set out at paragraph 14 of the NPPF. Where the relevant development plan policies are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole.
5.2 Paragraph 6 identifies that the policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system.
5.3 Paragraph 7 explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development; economic, social and environmental, and that therefore the planning system needs to perform three roles.
5.4 Paragraphs 18 to 22 set out the Government’s commitment to securing economic growth. Paragraph 19 states that planning should encourage and not act as an impediment to economic growth. The proposed development will provide new homes, will facilitate the growth of local business and generate new jobs. It will also provide significant economic benefits, including inward investment and support for the construction industry. The proposed scheme will enhance local employment opportunities.
5.5 Paragraph 21 identifies that planning should recognise and seek to address potential barriers to investment, including a lack of housing. The Proposed development will contribute to the provision of a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites in the Borough.
5.6 Paragraph 22 is clear in stating that “planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose”.
5.7 In addition, paragraph 22 states that “where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their own merits, having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities”. The thrust of this guidance should also be applied to redundant previously developed sites in rural areas and gives weight to a positive resolution to the proposals subject of this outline planning application.
5.8 Paragraph 32 identifies that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.
5.9 Parking can be provided in line with the Borough Council’s parking standards. Therefore the Proposals are consistent with paragraphs 39 and 40 of the NPPF.
5.10 Paragraphs 47 to 55 set out policy for the delivery of a wide choice of high quality homes. Paragraph 47 relates to housing land supply. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council does not have a sufficient supply of housing land. The delivery of 7 homes will make a modest but nevertheless useful contribution to the 5 year supply of deliverable housing, in accordance with Paragraph 47 of the NPPF.
5.11 Paragraph 50 includes the requirement to provide a mix of housing. A mix of housing is included within the illustrative layout.
1563 11 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
5.12 Paragraphs 56 to 68 set out the Government’s requirement for new development to be of good design. Paragraph 56 states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Paragraph 57 identifies that it is important to plan positively for high quality and inclusive design. The submitted illustrative layout reflects the key principles of urban design, providing a safe, comfortable, varied and attractive environment. The density and landscape features of the illustrative scheme are responsive to the context of the proposals. The proposed scheme will form part of a coherent edge to the village.
5.13 The high quality design of the illustrative scheme will enhance the overall quality of the area, establishing a strong sense of place. A significant area of Public Open Space will be provided, responding to the site’s edge of village location, and the landscape setting of the village. Consequently the development is in accordance with paragraphs 58, 60, 61 and 64 of the NPPF.
5.14 Paragraph 66 states that proposals which take account of the views of the community in the design of the development should be looked on more favourably. The illustrative layout responds to community consultation which has been conducted over many years.
5.15 Paragraphs 69 to 78 describe the Government’s objectives for healthy communities. Paragraph 69 states that all sections of the community should be involved in planning decisions. The public consultation included all residents of the village. The illustrative layout incorporates active frontages, a safe and accessible environment, legible pedestrian routes, and high quality public space, consistent with paragraph 69 of the NPPF.
5.16 Paragraph 73 recognises the important contribution that access to high quality open space makes to the health and well-being of local communities. The significant areas of open space provided as part of the proposed scheme will have a positive impact on the health and well-being of the local community.
5.17 Paragraph 74 relates to the protection of existing open space, sports and recreational land and Paragraphs 76 and 77, deal with local green space. For the reasons set out above the Proposal fully accords with these paragraphs.
5.18 Paragraphs 93 to 108 set out the Government’s priorities for climate change. Paragraph 93 identifies the key role of the planning system in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change.
5.19 Paragraph 99 states that new development should be planned to avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts resulting from climate change. Paragraphs 100 and 101 assert that development should be directed away from areas at the highest risk of flooding. The flood risk assessment (FRA) demonstrates that the proposals would not result in an unacceptable risk of flooding and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. The FRA endorses the design process adopted, which responds to the potential impacts of climate change. The proposals are appropriately flood resilient and resistant, in accord with paragraph 103 of the NPPF.
5.20 Paragraphs 109 to 125 consider the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment. Valued landscapes, geology and soils should be protected, impacts on biodiversity should be minimised and pollution should be avoided, in accord with paragraphs 109, 118 and 123. The submitted ecological assessment, LVIA and acoustic assessment demonstrate that, when mitigation measures are applied, the landscape, noise and ecological impacts of the Proposals are acceptable.
1563 12 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
5.21 Paragraphs 126 to 141 consider the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. Paragraph 126 states that heritage assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. The scheme will remove elements which detract from the adjacent conservation area and accordingly will enhance its special character and appearance.
5.22 Overall it can be concluded that the proposals fully comply with the definition of sustainable development set out in the NPPF.
5.23 The scheme supports Government objectives for the economy, rural development, transport, housing, design, healthy communities and climate change, in addition to those relating to the natural and historic environments.
5.24 It can therefore be concluded that the presumption in favour of sustainable development weighs heavily in favour of granting outline planning permission.
National Planning Policy Guidance
5.25 The Governments new Planning Policy Guidance was published on 6 March 2014. The guidance seeks to assist with how the NPPF should be interpreted and applied.
5.26 The new guidance is not intended to provide further policy but instead is meant to help clarify issues relevant to the planning regime.
5.27 The following sections of the NPPG have been considered in the preparation of this planning application:
Design Housing and economic development needs Housing and economic land available assessment Local Plans Natural Environment Planning obligations Rural Housing
1563 13 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
6.0 Material Considerations
Emerging Local Plan 2011 – 2029
6.1 An Exploratory Meeting on the Submission version of the emerging Local Plan was held by an Inspector on the 11 December 2014, following which he wrote to the council setting out additional work that was required to progress the Local Plan.
6.2 This work was completed by the Borough Council and has resulted in a number of proposed modifications to the Submission Local Plan. These changes include increasing the local housing figure from 748 units p.a to 850 units p.a to reflect the updated housing requirement (it is important to note that even this higher housing target remains the subject of fierce debate and it is widely asserted that the housing requirement will need to be increased further in order to meet the “objectively assessed” need).
6.3 There is no proposed allocation at Bradley. However, in light of the latest increase in the proposed Borough-wide housing requirement it would be reasonable to assume that the amount of housing directed towards rural areas should also increase.
6.4 In this respect, approximately 150 homes are required to meet the needs of the rural areas outside those listed (draft Policy SS5). The proposed scheme is available and deliverable now, and could make a modest, yet valuable contribution to the delivery of rural housing.
6.5 To the limited extent that the emerging Local Plan can be a material consideration for the purposes of determining this planning application, it is clear that the proposed development is entirely consistent with, and therefore not prejudicial to, the draft Plan’s “direction of travel”.
Housing Land Supply
6.6 On March 2015, Full Council agreed a revised local housing requirement for the borough of 850 dwelling per annum (dpa). This is a result of the Inspector’s initial soundness concerns on the previously proposed housing figure.
6.7 On this basis the council themselves accept that they can only demonstrate 3.4 years of supply (using the Sedgefield Method) based upon the revised annual requirement, and taking account of all recent appeal decisions such as Razors Farm, Overton Hill, Kennel Farm and Worting Farm.
6.8 The council, therefore, cannot demonstrate a robust 5 year land supply position and the presumption in favour of sustainable development is applicable. In terms of decision making, this means that, in line with paragraph 14 of the NPPF, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits (my emphasis), when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, or where specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.
6.9 In the recent Razors Farm appeal decision the Inspector (and the Secretary of State) records that there is:
“a significant and serious shortfall of housing when tested against the Council’s proposed housing target.”
6.10 The Council’s land supply position, or lack of, should be a major and significant factor in the determination of this application.
1563 14 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
6.11 The direct consequence of the LPA’s failure to be able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land is that Paragraph 49 of the NPPF is fully engaged. Paragraph 49 confirms that in the absence of adequate land supply, relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date
Delivering wider benefits
6.12 The existing kennels provide local employment. They are however in need of considerable capital investment or face closure.
6.13 The applicant has secured full planning permission to relocate the existing kennel business into a new 21st century facility to the south of the farm site. The new kennels will bring significant benefits to the local community and the environment. Noise and smell associated with the existing kennels will be removed to a greater distance from the village. The new kennel facility will also result in the end of large scale commercial poultry farming in the village. Aside from the smell, this will remove frequent HGV movements through the village which have blighted residents for so many years.
6.14 The costs associated with the development of the new kennels are considerable (see supporting viability assessment prepared by Sturt & Co.). It is critical that work on the replacement kennels commences as soon as possible or the business will close and there will be no capital to complete the new kennels.
6.15 The applicant has secured bank funding for much of the project which is no mean feat and is evidence of the applicant’s commitment to the project. In order to help fund the proposal, the applicant has secured further planning permissions for the conversion of various farm buildings to live-work units, the conversion of the existing kennels to residential use and the replacement of an existing bungalow with a new dwelling.
6.16 Despite the applicants best efforts, some of the approved ‘enabling’ schemes are no longer viable and a commercially viable scheme is now required to help deliver the environmental improvements.
6.17 The proposed scheme is the product of a thorough contextual analysis of the site and the surrounding area. The vision for the site represents a ‘once and for all solution’ to an acknowledged eye-sore. The proposals will help deliver the new kennels facility and make significant environmental improvements to the village and the surrounding area. The proposed scheme will recreate a village environment comprising traditional cottages, a farm house and barn-style dwellings.
6.18 It is clear that a residential redevelopment of the site would be less likely to cause disturbance to the surrounding residential properties in this area, and would result in less commercial movements along Berrywood Lane than if the site and neighbouring uses continued to be used for their lawful use, and more intensively than is being proposed.
6.19 In summary, the proposed development is considered to be consistent with the thrust of the Framework, and of the Development Plan when read as a whole. The proposed development is considered to constitute sustainable development, delivering economic, social and environmental benefits. The proposal seeks to make efficient and effective use of rural brownfield land, and will secure the retention of local employment in line with the Council’s policies. The principle of this development should therefore be supported.
1563 15 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
7.0 Developer Contributions
Planning Obligations
7.1 The proposed development will give rise to the need for planning contributions to off- set the impact of the development on local community facilities and infrastructure. The Council currently seeks contributions under Saved Policy C1 of the Local Plan. A draft Charging Schedule for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has been published by the Council, this has yet to be examined, and as such the Council does not have CIL in place.
7.2 Planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:
Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; Directly related to the development; and Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
7.3 In addition, the CIL Regulations, which took effect on 6 April 2015 prevent the pooling of contributions on specific infrastructure projects since 6 April 2010. The Council may still seek site specific infrastructure for developments where they are required to make the development acceptable in planning terms, however, these contributions must be reasonably necessary and proportionate in scale to the proposed development.
7.4 Any contributions to mitigate the impact of this development will be secured via a S106 legal agreement, and negotiated during the course of the application.
Draft Heads of Terms
7.5 Relevant parties include:
Mr & Mrs P Bliss (1) Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council (2)
7.6 The proposed development comprises up to 7 dwellings, landscaping and associated works.
7.7 In reference to the Council’s Developer Contributions SPD (2015) contributions towards a 7 unit development may normally include:
Affordable Housing Leisure Provision & Open Space Education Community Facilities
7.8 Where appropriate and viable, contributions will be payable on occupation of the dwellings. If the contribution is not used within 5 years of outline planning permission being granted monies will be refunded to the applicant/landowner or successors in title.
7.9 If developer contributions are deemed viable and necessary, the applicant covenants to the Council to pay the Council the Council’s reasonable legal costs in respect of the above.
7.10 The applicant will also covenant to the Council to pay the Council’s reasonable administration and compliance fee in respect of the above.
1563 16 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
8.0 Conclusion
8.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, whilst the relevant policies of the Development Plan are many years old, some remain broadly consistent with the NPPF and can therefore be given substantial weight. In addition because Paragraph 49 is engaged, Paragraph 14 of the NPPF directs the decision maker to grant planning permission…
“…unless the impacts of doing so would so significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework; or where policies of the Framework indicate that development should be restricted”.
8.2 The benefits of the proposed development can be summarized as follows having regard to the three dimensions to sustainable development set out in Paragraph 7 of the NPPF:
Economic
The proposed scheme will provide an injection of expenditure into the local economy in the short term during the Construction phase The proposed scheme will assist the delivery and sustainability of rural business
Social
The proposed scheme will make a small yet valuable contribution towards addressing the existing housing land supply shortfall in the Borough The proposed scheme will create a high quality built environment to foster the development of a vibrant and healthy community, with access to local services and facilities The proposed scheme will deliver a large area of open green space including provision of a ‘kickabout’ area The proposed scheme will support the applicant’s wider proposals to enhance the local environment which will benefit the community
Environmental
The proposed scheme will create a new, attractive ‘gateway’ into the village and enhance to the setting of the conservation area The proposed scheme will lead to the removal of many dilapidated buildings which do not reflect the character of the village or the surrounding landscape and which are acknowledged as being untidy The proposed scheme will result in the removal of large areas of concrete hardstanding The proposed scheme will support the protection and enhancement of wildlife habitats The proposed scheme will retain existing hedgerows and wildlife corridors, and create new green links The proposed scheme will result in no adverse harm to designated wildlife, geodiveristy or landscape areas The proposed scheme will help remove HGV traffic from the village
The Balancing Exercise
1563 17 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
8.3 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council is faced with a significant and serious shortfall of housing. The Local Plan process is protracted, and a Plan has yet to stand up to scrutiny through examination. The proposed development would provide 7 dwellings to boost supply. This provision, however small, should attract significant weight in favour of this proposal.
8.4 Further still, the proposed development will facilitate the delivery of a new modern kennel facility which will improve the amenity of local residents as well as sustaining a long standing local business and local employer.
8.5 It has been demonstrated through this outline application that the proposed development would result in no significant adverse harm to the landscape character of the area. The proposed development has been well designed to respond positively to the local context, and is appropriate in scale to its surroundings.
8.6 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal would not result in any significant adverse impact, and, on that basis, the proposed development benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the planning permission should be granted.
1563 18 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
Appendix A
Pre-application Enquiry
1563 19 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Our ref: RO/1563
6 November 2014
Mrs S Tarvit Planning Department Team Leader Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council Civic Offices London Road Basingstoke Hants RG21 4AH
Dear Mrs Tarvit
Gay Dog Boarding Kennels, Bradley Farm, Bradley, Alresford, SO24 9RY
I write on behalf of my client, Mr Paul Bliss, regarding the above which is within his ownership.
The purpose of this letter is to provide some background information and to seek the Councils views on the potential ‘once and for all’ redevelopment of the site.
Site Characteristics
Bradley Farm is located on the edge of the settlement of Bradley, between Basingstoke and Alresford.
The site sits in a valley at the uppermost reaches of the Candover Stream although the site is not located within the floodplain. There is a slight fall across the site from south - north.
Vehicular access to the application site is via Berrywood Lane, a small rural lane from Bradley to Lower Wield.
The application site is within an area designated as countryside in the adopted Local Plan. There are no specific environmental, landscape, ecological or archaeological designations that are known to apply to the site.
The area of land subject of this enquiry is approximately 1.8ha and comprises:
3 no. former poultry buildings (total approximately 2400sq.m); A group of kennel buildings (approximately 1000sqm); Associated hardstanding (approximately 4000sqm); and Open space (approximately 10ha).
Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council 6 November 2014
The existing group of buildings are utilitarian in form, character and appearance. They make no valuable contribution to the adjacent conservation area or to the setting of nearby listed buildings. The larger buildings are prominent in the wider landscape setting.
Relevant History
BDB/74472 Demolition of existing poultry building; conversion of 2 no poultry buildings to 2 no. eco live- work dwellings, landscaping and associated works Approved 4/1/2013
BDB/76837 Change of Use of Poultry building to Kennels and associated works Acceptable subject to completion of S106 - imminent
BDB/76838 Change of Use of Kennels to Dwelling Acceptable subject to completion of S106 - imminent
BDB/77583 Erection of replacement dwelling and car port following demolition of existing Approved 18/2/2014
Background
It is widely known that my client’s priority is to relocate the existing kennel business into the modern poultry building to the south as soon as possible. This is a direct response to an identified local need and the deteriorating fabric of the existing kennels. The relocation will also benefit the local community by:
Removing all HGV movements associated with the poultry use; Reducing vehicle movements generally; associated with a variety of uses; Moving kennel related noise and smells further away from the settlement; Sustaining local business and local employment.
In order to facilitate the proposed relocation, my client has secured planning permission for the conversion of several farm / kennel buildings to residential or Live-Work use. The existing grooming parlour/kennel buildings will provide approximately 200sqm of residential floorspace whilst the Live-Work dwellings would be approximately 650sqm each. Hence, a total of approximately 1500sqm of residential/Live-Work accommodation.
Mr Bliss also has planning permission to replace the existing bungalow with a larger dwelling.
PRO VISION Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council 6 November 2014
My client is not a developer. It is his intention that receipts from the sale of the above to be reinvested in the kennels. On this basis he has secured bank funding for the construction of the new kennels. This is no mean feat in the current climate.
Construction of the kennels will need to commence shortly (subject to discharge of conditions) because the existing kennels require prohibitive and abortive ongoing capital expenditure to maintain the buildings.
Mr Bliss has a good relationship with the community and has repeatedly consulted with them regarding the future of the site. The village is overwhelmingly supportive of the kennels relocation, and the other proposals which will facilitate this. However, there has been some local concern regarding the current appearance of the site, and aspirations for it to be ‘tidied up’.
Development Potential
It is considered that whilst the existing consents for residential conversion and Live-Work conversion broadly accord with planning policy and guidance and could be implemented without delay, there is an opportunity to improve the character and appearance of this part of the village by removing the existing scattered buildings and hardstanding (7400sqm) and replacing them with up to 4 no. new dwellings (approximately 250sqm each) and associated landscaping. The proposals could include work space to reduce the reliance on car use and encourage remote working.
The attached development concept plan illustrates in broad terms the form and extent of the site’s development potential, having regard to the constraints and opportunities identified.
It is suggested that 2 existing vehicle entrances could be closed. A new access onto Berrywood Lane could be created to provide appropriate visibility splays and improve highways safety along Berrywood Lane.
The proposed scheme could provide a “village green”, and possibly community allotments and orchards.
For your information I enclose a recent appeal decision relating to a group of redundant farm buildings in the South Downs National Park, near Winchester. Following a Public Inquiry, the Inspector allowed proposals for the demolition of the existing farm buildings and the erection of 2 large Country houses.
The Inspector agreed that the environmental and visual improvements that the proposals would deliver to the character and appearance of the landscape, would outweigh any harm from new dwellings in the countryside. There are some interesting parallels with Bradley Farm.
PRO VISION Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council 6 November 2014
We would therefore be grateful for the Council’s initial pre-application advice. Given the site history, the complexity of the issues and the material considerations that weigh significantly in favour of the proposals, we would like to have a meeting with officers as soon as possible.
Please find enclosed with this letter a cheque for £462 made payable to Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council, this being the fee payable.
If you require any further information at this stage please do not hesitate to contact either me. We look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Yours sincerely
RICHARD OSBORN SENIOR PLANNER [email protected]
Encs
PRO VISION allotments?
new dwelling community 4. orchard? new dwelling 3. ing access ap sc “village green” d closed n 2. a new l new low level wooden posts dwelling
new kennels g in new ap new sc access d dwelling n 1. a l
w e n access closed
CLIENT: Mr P Bliss
PROJECT: Bradley Farm, Bradley
DRAWING: Sketch Concept Plan home office / workshop SCALE: 1:1250@A3 DWG No : 1563/SK01
Hampshire Barn-style dwelling DATE: November 2014 REV: A
Hampshire Cottage
NORTH
0m 25m 50m 75m Grosvenor Court, Winchester Road, Ampfield, Winchester, SO51 9BD Hampshire Farm managers house Tel: 01794 368 698 Fax: 01794 368 637 email: [email protected] Ordnance Survey (c) Crown Copyright 2013 All rights reserved. Licence no.100022432 St Mary's House, 40 London Road, Newbury, RG14 1LA Tel: 01635 40184 Fax: 01635 41459 email: [email protected] new kennels
CLIENT: Mr P Bliss
PROJECT: Bradley Farm, Bradley
DRAWING: Existing Site Plan
SCALE: 1:1250@A3 DWG No : 1563/S01
DATE: November 2014 REV: #
NORTH
0m 25m 50m 75m Grosvenor Court, Winchester Road, Ampfield, Winchester, SO51 9BD Tel: 01794 368 698 Fax: 01794 368 637 email: [email protected]
Ordnance Survey (c) Crown Copyright 2013 All rights reserved. Licence no.100022432 St Mary's House, 40 London Road, Newbury, RG14 1LA Tel: 01635 40184 Fax: 01635 41459 email: [email protected]
Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 4,5,6,27, & 28 March 2014 Site visit made on 28 March 2014 by Lesley Coffey BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 14 July 2014
Appeal Ref: APP/L1765/A/13/2206384 Wolfhanger Farm, Woodlands, Bramdean, Alresford, SO24 0JJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr J Humphrey against the decision of the South Downs National Park Authority. • The application Ref SDNP/12/01248/FUL, dated 9 July 2012, was refused by notice dated 30 April 2013. • The development proposed is the demolition of the existing redundant farm buildings and construction of 2No Arts & Crafts dwellings with detached garages, landscaping and associated works.
This decision is issued in accordance with section 56 (2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as amended and supersedes that issued on 11 June 2014
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of the existing redundant farm buildings and construction of 2No Arts & Crafts dwellings with detached garages, landscaping and associated works at Wolfhanger Farm, Woodlands, Bramdean, Alresford, SO24 0JJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref SDNP/12/01248/FUL, dated 9 July 2012, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.
Procedural Matters
2. At the Inquiry the appellant submitted plan 1477/P102 to indicate the extent of the residential curtilages of the proposed dwellings. I am satisfied that this plan would not be prejudicial to either party and I have taken it into account in reaching my decision
3. A Unilateral Undertaking under S106 of the Act submitted by the appellant covenants to make a financial contribution of £109,600 towards the off-site provision of affordable housing. I am satisfied that the obligation would deliver the intended contribution and would comply with the tests within Regulation 122. I have therefore taken it into account in reaching my decision.
Main Issues
4. I consider the main issues to be:
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/13/2206384
• The effect of the proposal on the landscape of the South Downs National Park and the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside;
• Whether the proposal would provide a suitable mix of dwellings; and
• Whether the proposal is acceptable having regard to national and local planning policies that seek to restrict new housing in the countryside and the location of the site in the SNDP.
Reasons
5. The appeal site is situated within a small hamlet about 3.5 km from Bramdean and about 4.7 km from West Tisted. It lies within the South Downs National Park and is situated close to Bramdean Common.
6. The access to the site is situated between the former farm house to Wolfhanger Farm (now a private dwelling) and a pair of semi-detached cottages known as Romlus and Remus. The appeal site extends to about 5.5 hectares and is occupied by six large poultry buildings arranged in two blocks, together with a number of other ancillary buildings. These comprise three older buildings towards the upper part of the site and three more recent buildings towards the lower part of the site. The topography has been significantly altered to accommodate these buildings by way of cutting into the slope and through the creation of bunds to screen the lower buildings. The buildings have been disused since the previous poultry use ceased in about 2010.
7. Wolfhanger Farm was part of a larger business started by the Appellant’s grandfather to produce eggs and breed commercial egg laying stock. At full capacity it accomodated 24,000 Barn layers, 150,000 intensive cage layers and 6500 Free Range layers. Following changes in EU legislation which came into effect in 2011, and banned the use of the old style battery cages, the appellant concentrated production on other sites. The buildings include asbestos insulation and muck boards. In addition, some of the ancillary buildings are constructed from asbestos and two of the older buildings still have asbestos roofs.
8. The proposal is to demolish the existing buildings on the site and to replace them with two detached dwellings, each with a detached garage and a leisure room. The residential curtilage of the dwellings would be limited to an area of lawn, a courtyard and a kitchen garden. The remainder of the land would be used as an orchard and meadow areas. The existing access would be re- aligned to serve the upper dwelling, whilst a new driveway, utilising the existing access to Wolfhanger Cottages, would serve the lower dwelling. In addition, the topography of the site would be altered to reflect its previous profile.
9. National Parks have been confirmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The purposes of the National Parks are to conserve and enhance their natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities by the public. In carrying out these purposes, National Park Authorities also have a duty to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities.
10. The Framework states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/13/2206384
landscapes. Paragraph 115 requires great weight to be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty within National Parks.
11. The development plan for the area includes the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 Joint Core Strategy (JCS), adopted March 2013, and the Winchester District Local Plan Review 2006 (WDLPR). The JCS was prepared jointly with the National Park Authority and was adopted in March 2013. Policy CP19 of the JCS requires new development to be in keeping with the context and setting of the landscape of the SDNP. It states that the emphasis should be on small scale proposals that are in a sustainable location and well designed. Development which would have a significant detrimental impact on the rural character and setting of settlements and the landscape should not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the proposal is of overriding national importance, or its impact can be mitigated.
Landscape of the South Downs National Park and the Character and Appearance of the Surrounding Countryside
12. Three separate landscape assessments cover the part of the SDNP in which the appeal site is located. The South Downs National Park Integrated Landscape Assessment Technical Report (2011) identifies the appeal site as coming within the Bramdean Woodlands Landscape Character Area. The key characteristics are noted as a gently undulating chalk downland landscape with enclosures bounded by hedgerows, and a high proportion of woodland which contributes to the enclosed character of the landscape. The settlement pattern within the area is characterised by scattered farmsteads and hamlets.
13. The Hampshire County Council Integrated Landscape and Townscape Character Assessment (2011) and the Winchester District Landscape Character Assessment identify similar features and note the intimate character of the landscape due to the varied scale of field enclosures combined with wooded lanes and woodland copses and the undulating topography.
14. There are numerous public footpaths and other rights of way in the locality of the appeal site. The appellant submitted a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment to illustrate the impact of the proposed development on the landscape character of the area.
15. The existing buildings on the site provide about 9000 sq metres of floorspace. The upper poultry buildings pre-date those towards the lower part of the site and occupy much of the space between the former farm dwellings and the eastern boundary of the site. There are also a number of smaller ancillary buildings situated close to these buildings. A substantial conifer hedge separates this part of the appeal site from the adjacent dwelling (Wolfhanger Farm) and lies outside of the appeal site. Due to their age and materials these buildings have a soft muted appearance.
16. It is proposed to restore the levels of this part of the site, and as a consequence the proposed dwellings would sit lower within the landscape than the existing buildings on this part of the site. The eaves level would be comparable with that of the existing poultry buildings although the roof would be higher. The proposed upper dwelling would not be noticeable from the bridleway adjacent to the site due to the screening provided by the topography and the proposed lower dwelling. The most prominent public view would be from the bridleway to the east. From this viewpoint the dwelling would be
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/13/2206384
noticeable, but, due to its oblique angle and proposed materials together with its considerably smaller footprint, it would be less prominent within the landscape than the buildings it would replace. The proposed planting which includes a small orchard would further mitigate views of the dwelling. Like the existing buildings it would also be noticeable in views further to the north east, but from these viewpoints it would be seen against a backdrop of trees and it would not be conspicuous with the wider landscape.
17. The existing buildings on the lower part of the site are relatively recent, and although they were previously used for poultry rearing they are very substantial steel clad buildings and industrial in scale. The topography in the vicinity of the lower house would also be restored, and as a consequence, the proposed dwelling would sit considerably lower in the landscape by comparison with the existing buildings. Whilst the highest point of the proposed dwelling would be marginally higher than the poultry buildings, the proposed dwelling would have a much reduced footprint and would be significantly smaller in scale.
18. The bridleway adjacent to the northern boundary of the site is situated at a lower level than the adjacent land, and permits views up towards the site. The lower buildings on the site are a prominent feature of these views which are filtered by the vegetation adjacent to the boundary. The proposed dwelling will also be visible from the bridleway, however, it would be sited further from the entrance to the gated paddock, where views are most open, and would be set within a restored landscape. As at present, most views would be glimpsed views through the existing vegetation, which it is proposed to augment. Due to the arrangement of the proposed buildings around a courtyard area, the variations in the roofline and the restored landscape, the proposed dwelling would be considerably less intrusive in views from the bridleway than the existing poultry buildings.
19. There would be more noticeable views from the bridleway to the north east. From this viewpoint the bulk of the existing poultry buildings is clearly evident and the substantial reduction in scale would be beneficial to the natural beauty of the SDNP.
20. The proposed dwellings would be considerably less prominent in the wider landscape than existing buildings on the appeal site. Agricultural buildings are part of the established landscape within the SDNP, which includes other buildings similar in design to those on the lower part of the site. The Council suggest that the gradual decline of the existing buildings would be less harmful to the beauty of the SDNP than the appeal proposal. Dilapidated agricultural buildings are not uncommon within an agricultural landscape and in some instances are not unattractive. Nevertheless, due to the scale of the existing buildings and the manner in which the landscape has been altered to accommodate them, they do not reflect the rural character of the area, or make a positive contribution to the natural or scenic beauty of the SDNP.
21. The potential for harm to the beauty of the SDNP arises not only from the proposed buildings, but also from any changes to the character of the land surrounding the dwellings. The curtilage of both dwellings is defined on plan number 1477/P102. The remainder of the site would be retained as meadows with a small orchard, and the proposed hedges to the boundary of the site would limit views of the residential curtilages. Subject to a condition in relation
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/13/2206384
to the maintenance of the land outside of the residential curtilages I am satisfied that the proposal would maintain the downland character of this part of the SDNP.
22. The SDNP is not designated as a dark skies area. Nonetheless, in order to limit any intrusion of the landscape, the dwellings have been positioned so that only one or two small windows would face towards the open land between the appeal site and West Tisted. Such views would also be filtered by the existing and proposed trees.
23. Overall, the proposal would significantly reduce the extent of site coverage and would replace the artificially steep banks on the site with a gentler slope closer to the original landform. It would also reduce the extent of hard surfacing on the site, and provide additional landscaping, which together would be beneficial to the biodiversity of the area. Whilst the proposed dwellings may be noticeable in some longer distance views these would largely be views of the roofs of the dwellings and would be seen against the backdrop of the trees. Therefore the proposal would not be conspicuous in such views.
24. Although most development in the locality either fronts the road or has a visual link with the road, with the exception of the north-western part of the site the appeal site is largely located to the rear of these dwellings. The north-western part of the site is steeply sloping and a dwelling in this location would be likely to have a much greater impact on the landscape by comparison with the appeal proposal which would occupy a similar position to the existing buildings on the site.
25. Amongst other matters WDLPR policy DP3 requires the design of new development to respond positively to the character, appearance and variety of the local environment. The area of the SDNP where the appeal site is located is characterised by sporadic development and includes small hamlets such as the one in which the appeal site is located. The dwellings within the immediate locality of the appeal site are generally small-scale, former agricultural dwellings, and which although not unattractive, are architecturally undistinguished. However, as acknowledged by the Bramdean and Hinton Ampner Village Design Statement, individual dwellings within the surrounding area vary in terms of size and appearance and include several larger dwellings.
26. The proposed dwellings would be considerably larger than those in the immediate area, but would benefit from spacious plots appropriate to their size and scale. The dwellings would use traditional materials and would incorporate a number of traditional features such as casement windows, chimney stacks and dormer windows. Although the Council is critical of the design approach which adopts an Arts and Crafts ethos, it is apparent that a number of other dwellings similar in character have been permitted in the SDNP in recent years. I consider the design approach, including the landscaped setting to be compatible with the character of the wider area.
27. Overall the proposal would enhance the natural beauty of the SDNP through the restoration of the topography and the substantial reduction in the extent of the built form. It would also provide significant benefits for wildlife. It is a well considered proposal that responds positively to the context and setting of the landscape of the SDNP. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not conflict with JCS policy CS19 or policy DP3 of the WDLPR.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/13/2206384
28. The Council suggest that the proposal may constitute major development for the purposes of paragraph 116 of the Framework and as such should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Major development is not defined within the Framework, however, notwithstanding the size of the proposed dwellings, I do not consider them to represent major development in that any effect they may have on the SDNP would be local to the area and not the SDNP overall.
Whether the Proposal Would Provide a Suitable Mix Of Dwellings
29. Policy CP2 provides that new residential development should meet a range of community housing needs and deliver a wide choice of homes with priority being given to the provision of new affordable housing. Amongst other matters, it requires a majority of homes to be 2 or 3 bedrooms, unless local circumstances indicate that an alternative approach should be taken. Although policy CP2 does not explain what ‘local circumstances’ encompasses, I agree with the Inspector the Rooksacre decision1 this that it is intended to allow for some flexibility and policy CP2 does not expect each site to provide a majority of 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings.
30. It is evident that there would be considerable costs associated with the removal of the asbestos and the restoration of the landscape. There may also be a need to address any contamination that may have occurred as a consequence of the previous use. In light of the costs associated with the removal of the existing buildings, a scheme that would deliver 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings on the site would be likely to result in a greater number of dwellings overall. Such an approach would be likely to have a greater effect on the character of the SDNP by comparison with the appeal proposal, due to the need to accommodate parking, refuse storage, and domestic paraphernalia associated with a greater number of households. Should such development take the form of individual houses it may also involve the subdivision of the site to form private gardens and this could add to the harm to the character of the landscape.
31. The proposal would contribute to the provision of smaller houses elsewhere within the SDNP through the affordable housing contribution. Therefore taking account of the need to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the SDNP, and the affordable housing contribution, I conclude that the proposal would provide and satisfactory mix of dwellings and would not conflict with policy CP2.
Whether the proposal is acceptable having regard to national and local planning policies that seek to restrict new housing in the countryside;
32. The JCS identifies the appeal site as coming within the countryside where policy MTRA4 restricts development to a number of specified uses which do not include new dwellings. Policy H3 of the WDLPR has a similar intent and seeks to restrict new residential development to the defined built up areas of specified settlements. The appeal site does not come within these settlements. This approach is consistent with paragraph 55 of the Framework which provides that isolated new housing in the countryside should be restricted unless it is justified by special circumstances.
1 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/13/2194825 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/13/2206384
33. Whilst the proposal is clearly contrary to local and national planning policies in relation to new dwellings within the countryside the appellant has put forward a number of other factors which need to be weighed in the balance.
34. The buildings on the site were constructed for intensive caged egg production. Following changes in EU legislation such cages needed to be replaced by enriched cages, barn or free range egg production. Although one of the buildings was used for free range egg production in the past, this was reliant on renting land from an adjoining landowner. Due to the limited size of the site, and in particular the limited amount of open ground available, the appeal site is unsuited to free range egg production.
35. The appellant submitted a report which assessed the viability of a range of alternative agricultural and commercial uses for the site. This report was independently assessed on behalf of the Council, and both reports were reviewed by Mr D’Olley on behalf of the appellants. It was common ground that that the continued use of the site for egg production would require significant financial investment. It was concluded that colony egg production was not viable due to the size of the holding, the age of the buildings and the current market situation. Whilst the market is cyclical and returns may be higher in the future, in the absence of a long term contract, the level of investment required is unlikely to be forthcoming. In these circumstances egg production on the appeal site is unlikely to economically viable.
36. The reports also considered a range of alternative agricultural uses including intensive beef production, pig rearing, mushroom farming, intensive fish farming, rabbit farming, and equine uses. The absence of any additional agricultural land suitable for grazing, or the production of feed, means that the site is unlikely to be viable for a number of uses such as beef production or equine uses. The cost of asbestos removal and/or the limited amount of grazing land available, together with the financial risk relative to the level of investment required, indicate that these alternative uses are unlikely to be viable.
37. Whilst the Council did not dispute these findings, it considered that they represented a snap-shot in time, and that it is necessary to market the site to establish whether there is a viable alternative agricultural use. The site has been marketed since October 2013. During this period there have been 54 brochures sent out, 154 brochures downloaded and 4 viewings, none of which gave rise to any offers.
38. The appellant has also given consideration to alternative non-agricultural uses. Policy CE17 of the WDLPR sets out the matters the Council will take into account when considering the change of use of non-residential buildings in the countryside to employment generating uses. These include that the general form and bulk of the building is in keeping with the locality, that the buildings can accommodate the proposed use without substantial reconstruction, that the site is not in a remote location, and that the type of traffic generated can be accommodated without harming the character of rural roads. The accompanying text explains that large buildings and those in remote locations are unlikely to be suitable for conversion.
39. The buildings on the appeal site are of a substantial scale, with those on the upper part of the site providing 3,230 sq metres of floorspace and those on the lower part of the site 5,600 sq metres. Whilst the buildings on the lower part
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/13/2206384
of the site may be suitable for re-use, those at the upper part of the site are in poor condition. Both groups of buildings are likely to require substantial works to accommodate alternative uses in addition to the removal of the asbestos.
40. The site is accessed by a network of narrow rural lanes. A previous proposal for the use of four of the buildings for a Use Class B8 storage and distribution use was refused by the Council in May 2011 on the grounds that it was an unsustainable form of development due to its distance from urban areas and would result in an over-reliance on the use of private cars.
41. The parties agree that the previous use of the site as a poultry farm generated about 44 vehicle movements a day, whilst the road that passes the site carries about 300 vehicles per day. At the time of the previous application the Highway Authority assessed the proposal on the basis of the trip rates for commercial uses set out in the Transport Contributions Policy document published by Hampshire County Council (September 2007). On this basis, a B8 use occupying 470 sq metres of floorspace would generate a similar number of trips to the previous use and the majority of the existing floorspace would remain un-used. The appellant submits that a development of this scale would not generate sufficient income to remove the asbestos from the site. In addition the un-used buildings would remain and the topography would not be restored.
42. The Council consider that if only part of the buildings were used, the asbestos elsewhere on the site could remain. The extent to which asbestos would need to be removed for reasons of health and safety would be dependent on the nature of the proposed use, and it is probable that it would be necessary to remove it beyond the area to be utilised. In addition any un-used buildings on the site would either need to be maintained, or removed, in order to ensure that the site could be occupied in a safe manner.
43. It may be that some non-agricultural uses could occupy the site without giving rise to a significant increase in traffic. However, the Review of Employment Prospect, Employment Land and Demographic Projections (2011), prepared on behalf of the Council by DTZ, identified a total demand for B8 floorspace of 900 sq metres per annum spread across the whole district. Therefore taking account of the low demand for B8 floorspace, the constraints of the appeal site, together with the possible conflict with policy CE17 ( due to the size of the existing buildings and the remote location of the appeal site), I consider the potential for a commercial use of the site is limited. This was acknowledged by the Council’s report at the time of the application.
44. The Council is critical of the Appellant’s marketing exercise, in that the sale particulars include an agricultural covenant which is not in place at present, and that the site as marketed is smaller than the appeal site. I share some of the Council’s concerns as to the robustness of the marketing exercise. Notwithstanding this, the limited interest in the appeal site, when taken together with the constraints identified in the reports above, indicate that there is little prospect of an alternative agricultural use being established on the appeal site. Furthermore, the limited demand for B8 floorspace, together with the constraints in relation to traffic generation and the need to remove asbestos, would weigh against the likelihood of a non-agricultural use occupying the site.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/13/2206384
45. Humphrey Farms are a large local employer and invested in their other sites at Twyford and North Kingsworthy. Both sites include a number of small business premises. It is intended that the proceeds from the sale of the site would be re-invested within the business. Whilst this would be beneficial to the economic and social well-being of the SDNP, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that the funds generated by the appeal proposal would be used for this purpose. Notwithstanding this, it is apparent from evidence presented to the inquiry, and from my visits to North Kingsworthy and Twyford, that the company has a strong record of investment in the SDNP in relation to employment uses and the provision of affordable housing. Therefore this matter adds some weight in favour of the proposal.
46. The proposal would reduce the number of HGV movements in the narrow lanes that surround the site by comparison with the previous use of the site. Whilst this would be a benefit of the proposal, there is limited evidence to indicate that such movements previously gave rise to nuisance or raised concerns in relation to highway safety.
47. The removal of the existing buildings and the hard-standing would greatly increase the openness of the appeal site. Together with the creation of areas of meadow grassland, small orchards and additional planting the proposal would enhance the biodiversity of the site.
Overall findings in relation to housing
48. The appeal site lies in the countryside where local and national policies seek to strictly control new dwellings. It occupies a remote location with no facilities or public transport within walking distance. There are some facilities at West Tisted, including a primary school, GP surgery, shop and post office. Therefore although the site is not in a particularly sustainable location, and future occupants would be reliant upon the use of a car, it is not especially remote from services.
49. The site is not well located in terms of access to major roads, and there are few facilities within the immediate area to attract potential new employers. Notwithstanding the limitations of the marketing report, it would seem that the appeal site is not attractive to alternative agricultural or employment users. In the absence of a viable alternative use for the buildings, the Council suggest that they could be removed and the land restored. However, given the costs involved, including the need to remove asbestos from the site, I consider that in the absence of an economically viable use of the site the buildings are likely to remain.
50. The alternative would be for the buildings to decay overtime. The Council suggest that agricultural buildings are a common feature of the landscape and the decline of the buildings on the appeal site would not be harmful to the natural beauty of the park. I disagree. Whilst the upper buildings are smaller in scale and over time could perhaps be assimilated into the landscape, those on the lower part of the site would take many years to decline, and would remain a prominent feature within the landscape for the foreseeable future.
51. Moreover, this approach would be contrary to the aims of the Framework which has a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This has three dimensions: environmental, social and economic. Paragraph 9 advises that pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/13/2206384
the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life. It also supports the effective use of land through the re-use of previously developed land, provided that it is not of high environmental value. Although the appeal site is situated within an area of high environmental quality, the site itself is not of high environmental value. The appeal proposal would improve the quality of the natural and built environment as well as the living conditions of nearby residents through the removal of the traffic and any other nuisance associated with the previous use. This benefit is evident from the support for the proposal from those residing close to the appeal site and also from the Parish Council.
52. I have found above that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the countryside. It would also enhance the landscape of the SDNP and be beneficial in terms of its effect on biodiversity. Therefore taking account of the benefits of the proposal in relation to the SDNP, and the absence of available alternative uses, the principle of housing is acceptable.
Other Matters
53. Both parties referred to a number of appeal decisions. Whilst I have taken these into account, they each rely on the individual merits of the proposal and therefore they do not later my conclusions above.
54. Low level summer roosts of Common Pipistrelle bats and an unknown Myotis species were recorded within buildings 2 and 3. The removal of these buildings would result in the loss of these roosts. The Extended Ecological Phase 2 Assessment and the Phase 2 Bat Report detail measures to avoid harm to the bats during construction and to provide compensatory roosts within the development. Bats are a European Protected Species and therefore the proposal needs to satisfy the tests set out under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. In the event of a breach of Article 12, the appellant would need to apply to Natural England for a derogation licence based on the exceptions set out in Article 16. On the basis of the submitted evidence I am satisfied that the proposal would comply with the relevant tests and there is no evidence to suggest that a licence would not be granted. I therefore conclude that the proposal would provide adequate mitigation in relation to bats.
Conditions
55. I have considered the conditions put forward by the parties in the light of the policies within the Framework. In order to safeguard the character and appearance of the SDNP details and samples of the materials to be used should be submitted for approval. Although the submitted plans provide an indication of the levels on the site, the proposal would significantly alter the existing contours of the site, and therefore details of levels should be submitted for approval.
56. In order safeguard the rural character of the area the curtilage of the site should be limited to the area shown on plan number 1477/P102. Although the appellant has submitted details of the proposed landscape strategy, further details are necessary in view of the sensitive location of the appeal site. The scheme should include details of any trees and hedgerows to be retained. A condition in relation to landscape maintenance is also necessary for the same reason. A detailed arboricultural method statement is required in order to
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/13/2206384
safeguard the trees to be retained and protective fencing should be erected prior to the commencement of development.
57. Permitted development rights in relation to extensions and curtilage buildings should be restricted in order to minimise the effect of the proposal on the surrounding landscape. The garages should be retained for parking for the same reason.
58. In the interests of highway safety the visibility splays at the junction of the access to the lower house should be provided and permanently retained. Details of measures to keep mud off of the roads during construction should be submitted for approval. Details of drainage proposals should be submitted for approval In the interests of sustainability. For the same reason the dwelling should achieve at least Level 4 for water and Level 5 for energy rating under the Code for Sustainable Homes.
59. In the interests of biodiversity the proposal should be implemented in accordance with the measures outlined in the submitted ecological assessment and the Phase 2 Bat Report. For the same reason, and in order to safeguard the character of the SDNP, details of external lighting should be submitted for approval. An assessment to establish the extent of any soil contamination should be submitted, together with measures for its remediation, in order to protect the health of future occupants. I agree with the Council that the sub- division of the meadow areas could be harmful to the appearance of the landscape and therefore permitted development rights in relation to boundary treatment should be restricted. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning the proposal should be implemented in accordance with the approved plans.
Conclusion
60. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Lesley Coffey
INSPECTOR
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/13/2206384
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Trevor Ward of Counsel Instructed by Howard Bone Head of Legal Services He called
Elaine Walters Winchester City Council Alison Farmer Landscape Consultant Richard Brogden Bruton Knowles John Hearn Winchester City Council Steve Opacic Winchester City Council
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Paul Stincchcombe QC Of Counsel Instructed by Pro-Vision He called
Jonathon Humphrey Appellant Christopher D’Olley Carter Jonas James Cleary Pro-Vision Merrick Denton-Thomas
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Councillor Verney Mrs Dunnings
DOCUMENTS
1. Unilateral Undertaking dated 3 March 2014 submitted by the Appellant 2. Guidance note in respect of school transport submitted by the Local Planning Authority 3. County Council’s comments in relation to Bats submitted by the Local Planning Authority 4. Marketing report in relation to the appeal site submitted by the Appellant 5. Winchester District Local Plan Review policy CE.17 submitted by the Local Planning Authority 6. Winchester City Council and South Downs National Park Authority JCS policy CP11 submitted by the Local Planning Authority 7. Cash Flow summary dated 26 March 2014 in relation to appeal proposal submitted by the Appellant
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 12 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/13/2206384
8. Winchester City Council response to Natural England Bat licence query submitted by the Local Planning Authority 9. Bruton Knowles Addendum Report 10. Elaine Walters Supplementary Proof dated 24 March 2014 11. Marketing brochure for the appeal site submitted by the Appellant 12. Winchester Housing Market & Housing Need Assessment update Final Report 2012 submitted by the local planning authority 13. Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-Assement submitted by the appellant 14. Location of primary schools in relation to the appeal site submitted by the Appellant
PLANS
1. Plan no 1477/P102 submitted by the Appellant
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 13 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/13/2206384
Appeal Ref: APP/L1765/A/13/2206384
Schedule of conditions
1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 2) Prior to the commencement of development, details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwellings, leisure rooms and garages hereby permitted, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 3) No development shall take place until details of existing and proposed finished levels of the buildings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4) The residential curtilages as shown on plan number 1477/P102 shall not be extended without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. 5) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a scheme of hard and soft landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall include existing and proposed finished levels or contours, means of enclosure, including any retaining structures, a planting specification, trees and hedges to be retained, surface materials, and programme of implementation. The landscaping scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and the programme of implementation. Any trees or shrubs that fail within 5 years shall be replaced on a like for like basis, or as otherwise first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 6) No development shall take place until a schedule of landscape maintenance for the areas outside the residential curtilages shown on plan number 1477/P102 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, this shall include landscape maintenance for a minimum of 10 years. The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation. Landscape maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule. 7) Prior to the commencement of development, an Arboricultural Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The Arboricultural Method Statement shall include the details of the specification and location of tree protection, shown on a tree protection plan (TPP). The TPP shall also show root protection areas of all retained trees and details of pruning or removal of trees and hedges both within and overhanging the site. The arboricultural method statement shall provide details of any construction activities that may require works within the protected root areas. All works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 14 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/13/2206384
8) Prior to the commencement of any works, including demolition, protective fencing as shown on plan number ECO1 within the EcoUrban Aboricultural Implications and Method Statement (dated 5 July 2012), shall be erected on the site and shall be retained for the duration of the construction period. 9) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no development permitted by Class A, B, C and E of Part 1 of the Order shall be carried out without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. 10) The garages shown on the approved drawings shall be kept available for the parking of vehicles at all times and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order) or not, shall be carried out in such a position as to preclude vehicular access thereto. 11) Before the lower dwelling hereby permitted is first occupied, visibility splays of 2 metres by 33 metres to the north and 2 metres by 23 metres to the south, shall be provided at the junction of the Lower House access and public highway. The splays shall be kept free of obstacles at all times. No structure, erection or vegetation exceeding one metre in height above the level of the adjacent highway shall be permitted within the splays. 12) Prior to commencement of development details of measures to prevent mud or other debris on the highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such measures as agreed shall be implemented in full prior to the commencement of development and retained for the duration of construction works. 13) Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, details of the method of disposal of foul and surface water shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the dwellings. 14) Prior to the commencement of development, a statement outlining the proposed sustainable design and construction to comply with policy CP11 of the Local Plan Part 1 - Joint Core Strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall include the measures required to achieve a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) for Housing Level 4 for Water and Level 5 for Energy. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 15) The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the ecological measures as outlined in section 6 of the Phase 1 Ecological Assessment, the Extended Phase 1 Ecological Assessment and Phase 2 Great Crested Newt and Reptile Survey report by PV Ecology (June and October 2012) ) and the with the mitigation and enhancement measures set out within sections 6.4 to 6.12 of the Extended Phase 1 Ecological Assessment and Phase 2 Great Crested Newt and Reptile Survey Report (PV Ecology, October 2012) thereafter the proposed mitigation measures shall be retained at all times.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 15 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/13/2206384
16) The development shall be implemented in accordance with the measures detailed in section 6 of the Phase 2 Bat Report (PV Ecology June 2012). Thereafter the compensation measures shall be permanently maintained and retained in accordance with the approved details. 17) No external lighting of any description, whether permanently fixed, portable, freestanding or temporary shall be installed or operated other than that which has received prior written approval from the Local Planning Authority. 18) Prior to the commencement of development a contaminated land assessment (and associated remediation strategy if relevant), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. It shall comprise: a) A desk top study and conceptual model documenting all the previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land; b) A site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the desk top study; c) A remedial strategy detailing the measures to be undertaken to avoid risk from contaminants and/or gases when the site is developed and proposals for future maintenance and monitoring. Such scheme shall include nomination of a suitably qualified person to oversee the implementation of the works. 19) Before the dwellings are occupied, all remediation works identified in the contaminated land assessment and approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be carried out in full on site under a quality assured scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance. If, during the works, contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified, then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
20) Development shall cease on site if, during any stage of the works, potential contamination is encountered which has not been previously identified, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Works shall not recommence before an assessment of the potential contamination has been undertaken and details of the findings along with details of any remedial action required (including timing provision for implementation), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be completed other than in accordance with the approved details. Upon completion of the works identified in the contaminated land assessment and before the dwelling is occupied, a closure report shall be submitted which shall include details of the proposed remediation works with quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved methodology.
21) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no fence, wall, or other means of enclosure permitted by Class A of Part 2 of the Order shall be erected
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 16 Appeal Decision APP/L1765/A/13/2206384
outside of the residential curtilage of the dwellings herby permitted without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
22) The development hereby permitted should be carried out in accordance with the following plans: S01 Existing Unit 1 plans elevations; S02 Existing Unit 2 plans elevations; S03 Existing Unit 3 plans elevations; S04 Existing Unit 4 plans elevations; S05 Existing Unit 5 plans elevations; S06 Existing unit 6 plans elevations; S07 Existing outbuildings plans elevations; S08 Existing Site Section; P101 Site location plan; P102 (Rev E) Proposed block/site plan; P103 (Rev A) Proposed ground floor Upper House; P104 (Rev A) Proposed first floor Upper House; P105 (Rev A) Proposed roof plan Upper House; P106 (Rev A) Proposed elevations Lower House; P107( RevB) Proposed elevations rear Upper House; P108 (RevB) Proposed side elevations Upper House; P109 Proposed ground floor Lower House; P110 (RevA) Proposed first floor Lower House; P111 (RevA) Proposed roof plan Lower House; P112 Proposed elevations front Lower House; P113 Proposed elevations rear Lower House; P114 Proposed elevations side Lower House; P115 Leisure Room details; P116 (RevA) Garage details; P117 (RevC) Proposed site section; P118 Existing block plan; P119 Proposed block Plan; 400-01 (RevC) Landscape proposals and 1477/P102.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 17 Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
Appendix B
Pre-application Response
1563 20 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
Richard Osborn
From: Sue Tarvit
Patricia
Not sure why I got this
Sue
From: Jill Colclough Sent: 25 November 2014 11:40 To: Sue Tarvit Cc: DCR Subject: 14/03416/en28 Gay Dog Kennels, Bradley
Dear Sue
I refer to your memo dated 19th November, regarding the above.
Comments of: Landscape Team Comments relate to following drawing/document no(s): Submitted document, dated 6th November 2014
Recommendation:
Pre-application
Unacceptable for the following reasons: The proposed change of use from commercial to domestic use will neither maintain nor enhance the landscape character of the area and is therefore contrary to policy E6 of the adopted local plan, however, if the proposal is progressed:
The following information is required to assess landscape implications: Hard and soft landscape proposals
Comments: The settlement at Bradley, located in the landscape character area of the Candover Valley lies in a narrow tributary valley that runs north to meet the main valley floor, containing the ancient settlements of the Candovers. The landscape character is unified by the underlying strong linear forms of the narrow valley floors and steep sides, providing a diverse landscape of use, including large scale arable fields on the higher slopes, infrequent woodland blocks and low hedgerows, affording wide and long views. In contrast, the narrow valley floors are overlain by small pasture blocks with more frequent woodland blocks and high hedgerows, often containing narrow winding lanes, creating an enclosed intimate landscape character.
Bradley Farm sits on the eastern boundary of the Conservation Area of Bradley, a small ancient nucleated settlement, where the typical landscape character described above of small pasture blocks associated with the settlement is very much evident. Berrywood Lane beyond Bradley Farm links the isolated settlements of Lower and Upper Wield with the typical narrow, sometimes sunken, hedge lined lanes. Bradley Farm is neatly contained within a framework of woodland to the east and south, the northern boundary defines the change from pasture to arable on the valley slope, and carries the Oxdrove Way , a PROW. Its western boundary is formed with Berrywood Lane, and is uncharacteristically open. The site as a whole has various native and non-native immature planting that, whilst is not typical of the landscape character, provides a foil
1 for the existing collection of low level non domestic buildings and large areas of hard standing. Apart from glimpsed and framed views into the rear of the site from the PROW, and the currently open frontage, landscape and visual impacts on the wider landscape are negligible, and therefore, from a landscape perspective, the issues are of retaining the farmed landscape character, and resisting the overt domestication of the site.
This proposal seeks to change the use of the majority of the site from agriculture (in character) to domestic residential, relocating the business use (the kennels) to an existing modern agricultural shed, and retaining three smaller single story units. Permission has been granted to convert two of the existing single story units to residential, and remove a third shed. The landscape comments attached to this application remarked that the scheme was acceptable, because the existing buildings were being reused, conditions required a landscape scheme that did not seek to domesticate the setting, but reflected its agricultural and landscape heritage.
Similarly, the concern is for this proposal is that the essential farmed character of the site will change to a residential setting, with the loss of the existing low agricultural buildings and therefore an objection to the proposal is raised in that it the existing landscape character will neither be maintained nor enhanced. However, this scheme also offers opportunities to enhance and reflect local landscape character that is somewhat degraded at this point in Bradley, and therefore provide an enhanced settling to the conservation area, if this proposal is progressed, the key landscape components will be to provide whole site boundary features; to create a new settlement boundary with the relocated kennel use outside of this boundary, to reflect the historic land use arrangement, and strengthen the landscape character of linked woodland blocks with native hedges and defined lanes.
Key Issues: Impact on landscape character and visual amenity in accordance with saved Policy E6 of the local plan.
I trust that the above is clear, however, if you have any queries please contact me.
Regards
Jill Colclough Landscape Team Community Services Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council 01256 845763
2
Richard Osborn
From: Geoffrey Wallace
Patricia
The site is situated within Rural for the purposes of assessing NPPF Sustainable Transport Modes and the provision of residential motor vehicle and secure cycle parking provision, plus refuse/recycling facilities.
Each new property would normally be expected to provide on‐site vehicle parking spaces plus secure cycle parking for 2 long and 1 short stay places appropriate to the number of bedrooms being provided in each dwelling; Residential parking Standards July 2008 revised December 2012.
For the purposes of residential motor vehicle and secure cycle parking assessments the Residential Parking Standards for rural indicate: A one bedroom dwelling would normally be expected to provide 1.0 space with more than 50% unallocated, or 1.25 spaces with at least 20% unallocated; A two or three bedroom dwelling would normally be expected to provide 2.0 spaces with more than 50% unallocated, or 2.25 spaces with at least 20% unallocated; A four or more bedroom dwelling would normally be expected to provide 3.0 spaces with more than 50% unallocated, or 3.25 spaces with at least 20% unallocated; and the overall number of parking spaces will normally be rounded up. For individual dwellings where motor vehicle parking is provided and contained wholly within the property curtilage: one bedroom dwelling 2 spaces, two or three bedroom dwelling 3 spaces and four or more bedroom dwelling 4 spaces. The minimum internal dimensions of a single garage will by 6m by 3m, double or triple garages will be multiples of these dimensions, with minimum headroom 2.3m, these minimum internal dimensions allow for storage and parking. The minimum horizontal clear opening between the frames of each set of vehicular doors will be 2.3 metres or minimum 5m for single door to a double garage provided each vehicle has independent unobstructed vehicular access/egress. Although the minimum dimensions of unconfined parking spaces are 2.4m by 4.8m for perpendicular parking (2m by 6m for parallel parking), the width of parking spaces must be increased when confined by walls, fences or similar, i.e. recommended minimum 3m, additional widths may also be required alongside parked vehicles for transit routes for bicycles and waste containers and consideration should be given to the requirements for Lifetime Homes.
Secure cycle parking: all types of dwelling will also require, one bed ‐ 1 long and 1 short stay places, two to four or more bed ‐ 2 long and 1 short stay places; Refuse/recycling storage and collection facilities: all types of individual dwellings will require provision for 2 nos 240ltr wheelie bins and 1 nos glass recycling box. Notwithstanding storage points (prior to disposal) within the curtilage of dwellings, collection point(s) must also be provided within 15m for 240ltr bins of a carriageway that is a highway. Each individual dwelling, flat or HMO must also be capable of providing unobstructed pedestrian access (minimum width 0.9 metres) to the primary entrance of the property.
The enquiry seeks to stop up two existing access with the public highway Berrywood Lane and create a new single access to the proposed development with appropriate visibility sightlines (subject to recorded vehicle speeds), radii, surface materials and surface water retention, which should be advantageous to users of the public highway, albeit Berrywood Lane has limited width in the vicinity of the site; an opportunity may also exist to provided highway users with an appropriate vehicle passing bay.
The Highway Authority raises no in principle objection to the enquiry proposal subject to reaching agreement about the final details and the submission of a full and suitably detailed high quality planning application, accompanied by
1 appropriate supporting documents; Conditions would be recommended for consideration by the Local Planning Authority.
Regards
Geoffrey Wallace Principal Highway Engineer (Development Management) Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council Tel (direct): 01256 845 607 Fax: 01256 845200 [email protected] www.basingstoke.gov.uk Follow us on Twitter @BasingstokeGov
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 19 November 2014 12:45 To: Highways Consult Subject: Consultation for 14/03416/EN28 ‐ Gay Dog Kennels Bradley Alresford Hampshire SO24 9RY
Please find attached a planning consultation letter
2 Bradley Farm, Bradley Planning Statement
Appendix C
Community Consultation Feedback
1563 21 PRO Vision Planning & Design October 2015
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION FEEDBACK
Bradley Farm - Wednesday 2nd September 2015
Presentation:
A 25 minute presentation was given to the village of Bradley about planning proposals for Bradley Farm. The presentation was followed by a 35 minute question & answer session. The meeting took place on 2nd September 2015 and was hosted at Well Garden, Bradley.
Bradley Farm Representatives:
Paul & Melanie Bliss (owner); and Graham Gabie (project manager).
Attendees (8):
Isla Baring, Roy Benbow, Jackie Benbow, Caroline Carr, Caroline Dee, Phil Johnson & Angela Elkin, Sybil Hampton.
Following this meeting, the presentation was delivered to 30 households in the village (26 by email, 4 by hand). To date, 21 responses supporting these proposals have been recieved, representing 70% of the households canvassed and 60% of the households known to be occupied in the village. No responses have been received against these proposals.
Information gathered includes: Name and Address of householder, Yes or No (tick box) response to whether or not they support the proposals, and a space for their Comments.
Received responses listed below:
Name House Name Yes/No Comments 1 Isle Baring Manor Farm Yes Bradley need to have a decent development of cottages / houses, to enhance this beautiful village. YES!
2 Roy Benbow Field End Cottage Yes Very well thought through and I think the development will truly benefit the village
3 John Easton Oak Cottage Yes This will be a great development for the village and help tidy up a part of the village that has been neglected for a while.
4 Jackie Benbow Field End Cottage Yes I strongly support what has been proposed. I believe it would be a positive change to the village, Much needed
5 Phil Johnson & Horseleas Yes We very much like the proposals for the Angela Elkin development and feel that it would be an asset to the village. We encourage the redevelopment of the kennels and the removal of the old unsightly farm buildings.
6 Sybil Hampton Mar Lodge Yes This altered proposal is even more attractive and will enhance the village. It will also offer a welcome variety of housing. I am 100% in favour.
7 David & Sharon Old School House Yes This is a significant improvement and I Happy support this application without reservation.
8 Bob & Felicity Wield View Cottage Yes In principle, we have no objections to your plans as outlined 9 Colin and Roz Heath Jewel Cottage Yes We are absolutely in favour of the application and think it will much improve our village.
10 Mike & Di Gibbons Upper Farm Yes We are in broad favour of the application proposal.
11 Tim Hides Whitewalls Yes I think this will be a drastic improvement and is long overdue. I think Bradley really needs this as it tidies up this end of the village at long last!
12 Sarah Hides Whitewalls Yes This application proposal will be great for the village and I do hope you can get permission, and I believe the development is sympathetic to the village. 13 Chris & Jackie Smith 4 Oakmore Cottages Yes In principle, we are in favour of the application proposal. 14 John & Debbie Peters Flora Yes We would like to confirm that we have no objection to the Bradley Farm Planning Application proposal.
15 Derrick Larby 3 Church Meadow Yes More than happy to support the proposed planning application
16 John Rampton 4 Church Meadow Yes 17 Mr & Mrs Ayres Roselea Yes Good luck 18 Jackie Swan The Old Rectory Yes I think that 4-5 houses should be the limit bearing in mind the very narrow roads, and the ratio of new houses it would add to the 33 houses in the centre of the old village. The whole character of the village and the surrounding countryside is tranquil, peaceful and beautiful: all features the proposed planning regulations for Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council are anxious to preserve. I hope very stringent safeguards will be put on any Affordable Homes to be built (obviously a very desirable part of the development). We have already had one development meant to be affordable but has proved far from it! I find it very hard to understand how £1.6million can be spent on a dog kennels and hope to ever recover the costs in running the business. Also I find it hard to envisage people buying the luxury homes you are proposing wanting the kennels near them however sound proof you are endeavouring to make them. Clearly it is a worthwhile business for some for some dog owners, and especially for the employment of local people especially young people. The way you keep people informed of your proposal is admirable and much appreciated. 19 Terry & Sally Sunnyside Cottage Yes We do fully support your application to Hembury develop the area now covered by unsightly chicken houses. We feel this would benefit the village and cut down on large lorry movements.
20 Rupert & Beth Bradley Lodge Yes Beth and I are in favour of this application Cazalet proposal and we do hope you can expedite it as soon as possible. The proposals will offer a great benefit to the community of Bradley and we wish you every success in the matter. 21 Mike & Marie Lindel Yes We fully support the proposal. Bakowski
Bradley Village - Response Distribution