Cttee: 8th July Item No. 1 2020
Application no: 17/00818/OUT For Details and Plans Click Here
Site Address Manydown Land Off Roman Road And Worting Road Worting Road Basingstoke Hampshire Proposal Residential development of approximately 3,200 homes (up to a maximum of 3,520 homes) within Class C2 and C3; local centres including non-residential development (Class A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D1, D2, B1); development of two primary schools; land for one secondary school; open spaces including a Country Park with related ancillary facilities (Class A1, A3, D1, D2), Neighbourhood Parks, natural green spaces, allotments, outdoor sports facilities and associated amenities, play provision, informal open space and landscaping; indoor sports facilities (Class D2); primary means of vehicular access from the surrounding highway network; a central street (The Main Street) through the Site; associated secondary means of access, parking, footpaths, cycle links and related transport facilities; provision of 5 permanent gypsy and traveller pitches and infrastructure works to provide drainage, utilities and associated services. All matters are reserved except the primary means of vehicular access onto the A339, B3400 and Roman Road.
Registered: 1 March 2017 Expiry Date: 31 July 2020 Type of Outline Planning Case Officer: Lucy Page Application: Application 01256 845515 Applicant: Basingstoke & Agent: Mr N McKenna Deane BC & Hampshire County Council Ward: Buckskin Ward Member(s): Cllr T Jones Kempshott Cllr S Grant Rooksdown Cllr T Capon Winklebury Cllr H Eachus Sherborne St. John Cllr Mrs Court Oakley and North Cllr S Frost Waltham Cllr D Taylor Cllr H Golding Cllr T Robinson Cllr R Cooper Cllr A Freeman Cllr S Bound
Parish: WOOTTON ST OS Grid Reference: 460045 152758 LAWRENCE CP OAKLEY AND DEANE CP ROOKSDOWN CP
Recommendation: The applicant be invited to enter into a legal agreement (in accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and Policies CN1, CN5, CN6, CN8, CN9, EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029) between the applicant and the Borough and County Councils to include securing: 40% affordable housing with a 70/30 tenure split Proportion of Self Build/Custom build units and Gypsy and Traveller plots On site Public Open Space Allotment provision Play/recreation facilities including sports pitches Indoor sports facility On-site community facilities Provision for a Community Development Worker Provision of one three form entry Primary School 2.8ha site with associated contributions Provision of two form entry Primary School 2.2ha site with associated contributions To reserve 12ha of serviced land for one 12FE Secondary School with contributions to a 5 FE Secondary School Nursery and pre-school provision Delivery of local centres On-site health provision Landscape Management Plan Provision of a Country Park Country Park Management Plan Off-site Ecological Mitigation (contribution and works) On-site and off-site Public Rights of Way Improvements Delivery of principal access points and the link road Contribution to off-site improvements to footways and cycleways and connectivity to the Town Centre Contribution to off-site highway improvements Delivery of specified off-site highways works Public Transport Contribution Travel Plan Financial contribution towards necessary Traffic Regulation Orders Employment Skills Plan Broadband Provision Financial contribution towards necessary Traffic Regulation Orders
Should the requirements set out above not be satisfactorily secured, then the Planning and Development Manager be delegated to REFUSE permission for appropriate reasons.
The Planning and Development Manager be delegated authority to make minor alterations to the requirements of the legal agreement listed above and/or conditions listed at the end of this report where the objectives of the committee are still achieved.
On completion of the legal agreement(s) the Planning and Development Manager be delegated to grant planning permission subject to the following reasons and conditions at the end of the report.
Reasons for Approval
1. The proposed development would deliver housing development in accordance with the Borough's Land Supply requirements. The proposal would therefore accord with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) in relation to housing supply, Policies SS1 and SS3.10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Manydown Development Brief SPD (2016).
2. It is considered that the quantum of development proposed by the outline planning application can be satisfactorily accommodated within the site. The proposed development will be consistent with the requirements of criteria (a) of Local Plan Policy SS3.10 for approximately 3,400 dwellings and for those other uses, such as social, community and green infrastructure, schools and other forms of accommodation, described by criteria (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and other criteria in Policy SS3.10. The development is in accordance with the requirements of the Manydown Development Brief SPD and, in particular, the development as described in objectives (1) and (3) of the SPD for approximately 3,400 new homes and other social and community infrastructure.
3. Whilst introducing a significant amount of development onto the site, the proposal can be accommodated so not to result a significantly detrimental impact on the landscape character and scenic quality of the area. The development would provide an acceptable degree of mitigation whilst delivering housing development. The proposal therefore complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) and Policies SS3.10, EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Manydown Development Brief SPD.
4. The proposed development would provide safe access in accordance with highway requirements, and make suitable provision for future access requirements that may be required to serve future development and as such would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policies SS3.10, EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Manydown Development Brief SPD.
5. With the use of appropriate conditions and planning obligations the proposal would conserve and provide a framework for the enhancement of the overall biodiversity value and nature conservation interests of the site providing a biodiversity net gain and as such the proposal would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies SS3.10 and EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029, the Manydown Development Brief SPD and the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees SPD.
6. The development can be accommodated on the site so as not result in an adverse increase risk of flooding and as such the proposal would comply with National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policies EM7 and SS3.10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Manydown Development Brief SPD.
7. Adequate drainage (foul and surface water) can be provided for the development and can be adequately controlled through other legislation, and through planning conditions, so as to ensure that there would be no risk to property or the environment. The proposal accords with the NPPF (February 2019), Policies SS3.10 and EM7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Manydown Development Brief SPD.
8. The proposed housing development is development that without mitigation could result in pollution and is also sensitive to pollution including air pollution, noise and vibration. Development can be accommodated on the site which would result in no significantly detrimental impact to existing and future residents beyond that which may be reasonably expected, as a result of existing, historic, or nearby land uses and activity; and as such the proposal accords with the NPPF (February 2019), Policy EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 – 2029 and the Manydown Development Brief SPD.
9. The proposed development would provide policy compliant affordable housing to meet an identified need. As such the proposal would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CN1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029, the Manydown Development Brief SPD and the Housing SPD.
10. Through the provision of a Section 106 Legal Agreement, the development would provide adequate infrastructure to mitigate the impact of the development. The development would therefore comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019); the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010; and Policies CN1, CN6, CN7, CN8, and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
11. Through the provision of a Section 106 Legal Agreement the development would provide an appropriate mix of housing including self-build/custom build and Gypsy and Traveller provision and as such the proposal would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CN3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029 and the Manydown Development Brief SPD.
12. The proposed development would result in less than substantial harm to the setting of the Worting Conservation Area, neighbouring Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments but is acceptable when considered against the public benefits of the development including the significant contribution to the council’s housing land supply requirements. As such the development complies with paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, the Manydown Development Brief SPD, the Heritage SPD and the Worting Conservation Area Appraisal (2003).
1. General comments
1.1. This application has been brought to the Development Control Committee in accordance with the scheme of delegation, given the applicants, the number of objections received and the Officer’s recommendation for approval.
1.2. The application was originally due to be considered at a Development Control Committee meeting on 24 March 2020. This meeting was cancelled. While the application has not altered in the interim period this report does include various updates compared to the report published for the aforementioned cancelled meeting, including amendments to conditions previously reported and therefore needs to be considered as a new report in its entirety.
1.3. This outline planning application has been amended and supplemented since its original submission on 27/07/2018, 28/01/2019 and 12/12/2019. A summary of the key amendments and additional information across those submissions is set out in the Proposal section of the report.
2. Planning Policy
2.1. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019)
2.1.1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied, and is a material consideration in the determination of this planning application.
2.1.2. Decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise as set out in Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The following sections of the NPPF contain policies material to the assessment of this application:
Section 2 (Achieving Sustainable Development) Section 4 (Decision Taking) Section 5 (Delivering a Sufficient Supply of Homes) Section 6 (Building a Strong Competitive Economy) Section 8 (Promoting Healthy and Safe Communities) Section 9 (Promoting Sustainable Transport) Section 12 (Achieving Well-designed Places) Section 13 (Facilitating the Sustainable Use of Minerals) Section 14 (Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change) Section 15 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment) Section 16 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment)
2.2. Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029
Policy SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing) Policy SS3 (Greenfield Site Allocations) Policy SS3.10 (Manydown) Policy CN1 (Affordable Housing) Policy CN3 (Housing Mix for Market Housing) Policy CN4 (Housing for Older People) Policy CN5 (Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show People) Policy CN6 (Infrastructure) Policy CN7 (Essential Facilities and Services) Policy CN8 (Community, Leisure and Cultural Facilities) Policy CN9 (Transport) Policy EM1 (Landscape) Policy EM2 (Oakley Strategic Gap) Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation) Policy EM5 (Green Infrastructure) Policy EM6 (Water Quality) Policy EM7 (Managing Flood Risk) Policy EM9 (Sustainable Water Use) Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) Policy EM12 (Pollution) Policy EP1 (Economic Growth and Investment) Policy EP3 (Town and District Centres)
Policy SS3.10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan allocates the site the subject of this application for the erection of 3400 dwellings.
2.3. Oakley and Deane Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2029
Policy 1 (Housing) Policy 6 (New Allotments)
2.4. Wootton St Lawrence Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2029
Policy WSL1 (Local Gap) Policy WSL3 (Public Rights of Way) Policy WSL4 (Light Pollution)
2.5. Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance
Manydown Development Brief SPD Design and Sustainability SPD 2018 Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD 2018 Housing SPD 2018 Parking Standards SPD 2018 Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD 2018 Landscape Character Assessment SPG Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees SPD 2018 Adopted Green Space Standards Heritage SPD 2019 Oakley and Deane Village Design Statement Worting Conservation Area Appraisal
2.6. Other Material Documents
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (including Sections 66 and 72) National Planning Practice Guidance North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan 2019-2024 North Wessex Downs Position Statement on Setting Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011 (as amended 2015) BDBC Housing and Homelessness Strategy 2016-2020 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (as amended 2015, consolidated 2019) Hampshire County Council's Developers' Contribution towards Children's Services Facilities Hampshire County Council Countryside Access Plan 2015-2025 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Department for Transport Manual for Streets Department for Transport Manual for Streets 2 English Heritage - Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance English Heritage Guidance `The Setting of Heritage Assets` DCLG and English Heritage, PPS5 Practice Guide 2010 Annex 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, August 2015 The Council’s Gypsy and Traveller Needs Assessment (GTNA) 2017 Planning Practice Guidance (2019) Green Infrastructure Strategy (2018) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006) The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (Revised 2015) Standing Advice for Ancient Woodlands 2018 Planning for Ancient Woodland – Planners Manual for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees July 2019 National Design Guide 2019
2.7. Other Relevant Legislation
The Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act February 2016
3. Description of Site
3.1. The site is located to the west of Basingstoke and covers an area of approximately 321 hectares of which approximately 101 hectares is to be provided as a Country Park. The only existing built development within the application site area is the house and farm buildings associated with Worting Wood Farm and (although excluded from the planning application boundary) three residential properties to the south of Worting Wood Farm, which the application boundary surrounds.
3.2. The site is bounded in part to the north by the A339 Kingsclere Road, which links Basingstoke to the west and north-west. Much of the eastern boundary is formed by Roman Road, which is a local road running approximately north to south and marking the existing western edge of Basingstoke. Roman Road joins to Roman Way at its southern end and this short link meets the B3400 Worting Road at a roundabout junction. Worting Road (B3400) runs approximately east to west and bisects part of the site, providing access to the west and southwest of the site including the village of Oakley. The southern edge is bounded by the mainline Exeter / Weymouth to London railway line, which is partly in cutting and partly on embankment. To the south of the railway line is land known as Parcel 6A which is within the Local Plan allocation SS3.10 but does not form part of this planning application boundary.
3.3. The largest proportion of the Worting Conservation Area (CA) and which includes a number of Listed Buildings including Worting House sits to the north of the B3400 (Worting Road) although there are a number of dwellings and land to the south of this road and outside of the application site boundary. The application site would wrap around the CA to the north and west, with the development area to the south of Worting Road sitting to the west of the southwestern boundary of the CA.
3.4. Scrapps Hill Farm is located on the western edge of the CA and includes a Grade II Listed Barn Building and two notable buildings. The Conservation Area boundary also extends westwards from this point and includes a section of the B3400 road, within which part of the application site is located.
3.5. The Parish of Wootton St Lawrence lies to the north west of the western edge of the site, beyond the Country Park land and includes a number of listed buildings.
3.6. The site levels range between 105.00m AOD - 136.50m AOD, the lowest elevations across the site lie towards the east by the Roman Road and south towards Pack Lane. The site is generally more elevated in the north and west.
3.7. Two areas of ancient woodland lie within the site boundary; Wootton Copse and Worting Wood. These are both ancient and semi-natural deciduous woodlands and are 11 hectares and 10.5 hectares respectively. During the course of the application a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) known as Green Lane was designated in November 2017.
3.8. The North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) lies approximately 700m from the Site’s northern boundary at its closest point. The nearest national nature conservation designations are the River Test Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) approximately 6km southwest, and the Pamber Forest and Silchester Common SSSI located approximately 6km north.
4. Proposal
4.1. The description has also been revised to the following:
Residential development of approximately 3,200 homes (up to a maximum of 3,520 homes) within Class C2 and C3; local centres including non-residential development (Class A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D1, D2, B1); development of two primary schools; land for one secondary school; open spaces including a Country Park with related ancillary facilities (Class A1, A3, D1, D2), Neighbourhood Parks, natural green spaces, allotments, outdoor sports facilities and associated amenities, play provision, informal open space and landscaping; indoor sports facilities (Class D2); primary means of vehicular access from the surrounding highway network; a central street (The Main Street) through the Site; associated secondary means of access, parking, footpaths, cycle links and related transport facilities; provision of 5 permanent gypsy and traveller pitches and infrastructure works to provide drainage, utilities and associated services. All matters are reserved except the primary means of vehicular access onto the A339, B3400 and Roman Road.
4.2. In addition to the plans and particulars the application is also supported by an Environmental Statement in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2015). The site falls within three parishes (Rooksdown, Wootton St Lawrence and Oakley and Deane).
4.3. There have been a number of changes to the application following its original submission in March 2017. These changes include:
Confirmation that the proposed development is for up to a maximum of 3520 homes. Change in the design of the northern access into the site from the A339 to increase queueing capacity and improve traffic flow through the junction. Change in the design of the southern access into the site from the B3400 Worting Road from a single crossroads junction to a layout with two junctions: a roundabout and a crossroads. This amended junction layout includes a new section of Main Street and will reduce traffic flows through the southern neighbourhood centre. Change in the design of the secondary access junction from the B3400 into the southern area of the site – this junction only now considered in outline. Reduction in the proposed height of buildings along the B3400 Worting Road and around the western boundary of the Worting Conservation Area. Reduction in the height of buildings around Worting Wood Farm. Reduction in the height of buildings fronting onto the Central Neighbourhood Park and existing Church Lane. The proposed density of development adjacent to Church Lane has been reduced and the offset of development from the lane has been increased. Reduction in the maximum proposed height of buildings fronting the Central Neighbourhood Park and existing lane up to 4 storeys maximum. Confirmation that 5 Gypsy and Traveller Pitches will be provided in a single location. Reduction in number of potential secondary school sites, from three to one and approximate location of both secondary and primary schools identified on the plan following discussion with HCC as Education Authority. Increase in the size of the Northern Neighbourhood Park and location further from the A339. Northern neighbourhood park amended so that the main street no longer cuts through it and park located further away from A339. Extension of 25 metre noise and vibration buffer adjacent to the railway on the Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan. Addition of an area of Strategic Multi Functional Green Space south of the A339 (potential location of allotments). An overlap has been introduced between the development areas and the Neighbourhood Parks to reflect the fact that the exact area and shape of the parks would be determined post outline permission. Reduction in the number of potential secondary school sites from three to one.
4.4. On the basis of changes to the highways proposals at the A339 and B3400 the application has been amended to make some changes to the parameter plans. For example, the northern neighbourhood park is no longer dissected by road. The open space needs have been recalculated based on the maximum number of homes that could be built. An illustrative plan has been submitted to indicate how this could be accommodated on site.
4.5. The application is supported by:
5556/OPA/001/P Rev C – Application Site Area Plan (Red Line) 5556/OPA/002/P Rev C – Land Use Parameter Plan (Revised July 2018) 5556/OPA/003/P Rev C – Building Heights and Density Parameter Plan (Revised July 2018) 5556/OPA/004/P Rev D – Principal Access and Movement Parameter Plan (Revised December 2019) 5556/OPA/005/P Rev D – Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan (Revised December 2019) 5556/OPA/006/P Rev H – Primary means of access Plan 1: Access to A339 and Roman Road (Revised July 2018) 5556/OPA/007/P Rev A – Primary means of access Plan 2: Roman Road/Winklebury Way (Revised July 2018) 5556/OPA/008/P Rev A – Primary means of access Plan 3: Worting Road Access Junction (Revised July 2018) MSD1R - Design and Access Statement (Revised July 2018) MSD1RA Design and Access Statement Addendum (January 2019) MSD2R Planning Statement (Revised July 2018) MSD2RA Planning Statement Addendum (December 2019 including updated heads of terms document December 2019) MSD3R Landscape Strategy (Revised July 2018) MSD4R Affordable Housing Statement (Revised July 2018) MSD5 Statement of Community Involvement (February 2017) MSD5A Statement of Community Involvement Addendum (July 2018) MSD5A2 Statement of Community Involvement Second Addendum (December 2019) MSD6R Phasing Plan, Schedule of Development and Delivery Statement (Revised July 2018) MSD7R Community Development Strategy (Revised July 2018) MSD8R Infrastructure Delivery Strategy (Revised July 2018) MSD9R Economic Statement (including Retail Impact Assessment) (Revised July 2018) MSD9RA Economic Statement Addendum (January 2019) MSD10 Construction Statement (February 2017) MSD11R Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (Revised July 2018)
4.6. Environmental Statement MSD12 (February 2017) Including:
ES Chapter 1 Introduction ES Chapter 2 EIA Methodology ES Appendix 2-1 to 2-3 ES Chapter 3 Site Description ES Chapter 5 Alternatives Considered ES Chapter 7 Community, Social and Economic Effects ES Appendix 8-3 Archaeological Geophysical Report ES Appendix 8-4 Pre-determination Evaluation Areas A & B ES Appendix 8.5 Catterns Crossroads SM Evaluation ES Chapter 9 Ecology and Nature Conservation ES Appendix 9-1 Ecological Desk based Assessment ES Appendix 9-3 Arboriculture ES Appendix 9-4 Ornithology ES Appendix 9-5 Bats ES Appendix 9-6 Hazel Dormice ES Appendix 9-7 Badgers ES Appendix 9-8 Reptiles ES Appendix 9-9 Invertebrates ES Chapter 10 Ground Conditions and Soils ES Appendix 10-1 Geo-environmental Geo-technical Desk Based Study ES Chapter 11 Landscape ES Appendix 11-A Plan extract showing countryside design areas ES Appendix 11-B Site BAS 098 ES Chapter 12 Views ES Appendix 12-A Verified photomontage method statement ES Appendix 12-C Manydown Visual Assessment Tables ES Appendix 12-D Plan extract showing countryside design areas ES Appendix 13-1 Baseline noise and vibration ES Chapter 15 Water Environment ES Appendix 16-1 Fiveways Modelling Assessment ES Chapter 17 Mitigation Measures and Significant Residual Effects (February 2017) ES Figures Chapter 1 to 5 (February 2017) ES Figures Chapter 6 to 11 (February 2017) ES Figures Chapter 12 to 16 (February 2017) ES Glossary (February 2017)
4.7. Environmental Statement Figures MSD12A (February 2017)
MSD12A ES Figures (Addendum July 2018) MSD12A2 ES Figures (Addendum December 2018) MSD12A3 ES Figures (Addendum December 2019)
4.8. Environmental Statement Addendum Summary MSD13R (Revised December 2019)
Appendix A Updated ES Chapter 6 Air Quality (Revised December 2019) Appendix B Updated ES Appendix 6-1 to 6-5 (Revised December 2019) Appendix C Updated ES Chapter 8 Cultural Heritage (Revised July 2018) Appendix F Update to the Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment (Revised December 2019) Appendix F1 ES Appendix 9-3 Arboriculture (Addendum July 2018) Appendix F2 Farmland Wildlife Mitigation Framework (Revised December 2019) Appendix F3 Protected Species Mitigation Framework (Revised December 2019) Appendix F4 MSD12mR Habitats and Flora (Revised December 2019) Appendix G Update to the Landscape Assessment in ES Chapter 11 (Addendum July 2018) Appendix H Update to the Assessment of Views in ES Chapter 12 (Addendum July 2018) Appendix H1 Updated ES Appendix 12 B Sequential Visual Assessment for Linear Visual Receptors Through and Adjacent to the Site (Revised July 2018) Appendix H2 Update to the ES Appendix 12 C Manydown Visual Assessment Tables (Addendum July 2018) Appendix I Updated ES Chapter 13 Noise and Vibration (Revised July 2018) Appendix J Updated ES Chapter 14 Traffic and Transportation (Revised December 2019)
Appendix M Updated ES Chapter 16 Cumulative and In-combination Effects (Revised December 2019) Appendix O Updated ES Chapter 4 Proposed Development (Revised December 2019) MSD12aR MSD13 ES Addendum Appendix K Transport Assessment (Revised July 2018) MSD12aRA MSD13 Appendix P Transport Assessment (Revised January 2019) MSD12aRA2 MSD13 Appendix P Transport Assessment (Second Addendum Dec 2019) MSD13 Appendix P Transport Assessment (Revised January 2020) MSD12bRMSD13 Appendix N Framework Travel Plan (Revised July 2018) MSD12cR MSD13 ES Addendum Appendix D Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (Revised July 2018) MSD12dR MSD13 ES Addendum Appendix E Heritage Statement (Revised July 2018) MSD12e ES Appendix 10-3 Agricultural Land Classification (February 2017) MSD12f ES Appendix 10-2 Land Quality Statement (February 2017) MSD12gR MSD13 ES Addendum Appendix L Flood Risk Assessment (Revised July 2018) MSD12h Foul Drainage and Utilities Assessment (February 2017) MSD12zREnvironmental Statement Non-Technical Summary (Revised December 2019) MSD14R Manydown Movement Strategy (Revised December 2019) MSD15R MSD15R3 Biodiversity Impact Assessment (Revised February 2020)
4.9. The application was originally supported by an indicative phasing plan and schedule of development however following the confirmation of a development partner the applicant has withdrawn this and provided a table within (MSD6R) to show an indicative phasing strategy. The applicant has confirmed that these have been provided for illustrative purposes only.
4.10. The indicative phasing plan shows:
Phase 0 - Enabling works and advanced infrastructure
Phase 1A/B - Up to 1200 homes - Primary means of access - The first primary school, 2FE with capacity to expand to 3FE - Nursery and pre-school provision - The Community Hub (either temporary provision or permanent) - Country Park to open - Associated neighbourhood park, open space, play areas and SUDs
Phase 2A/B - Up to 1200 homes - Primary means of access - The Main Street connecting the A339 to the B3400
- The first local centre - Expansion of the first primary school to 3FE - Opening of the Country Park Hub - Provision of Gypsy and Traveller pitches or agreed alternative off-site provision - Associated neighbourhood park, allotment site, open space, play areas and SuDS
Phase 3A/B - Up to 1120 homes - Primary means of access - The second local centre - The second 3FE primary school - Nursery and pre-school provision - Satellite community facility - Provision of Sports Hub (comprising of playing pitches, sports pavilion and indoor sports hall) - Associated neighbourhood park, allotment site, open space, play areas and SuDS
5. Consultations
The final comments received from consultees in relation to the latest submissions by the applicant are summarised below. Where relevant or where they are the only comments received, comments made on the original submission are also referenced.
5.1. Parish Councils: In light of the length of comments in total, these are set out from the various Parish Councils who have responded in full at Appendix 1.
5.2. Cllr S Bound – Comments (received April 2017)
“In response to the planning application I am very concerned to find that the extended roundabout option has been chosen over the double “T” junction which appeared to be preferred during the consultation process and in the meetings with Rooksdown Parish council. When questioned the project team confirmed, during the consultation, that there was little difference between the two options in terms of cost of implementation and future capacity. It is therefore difficult to understand why the roundabout option has been selected that requires significant land take on the corner of Rooksdown Avenue and large parts of hedging and trees to be removed.
With some of the trees included for removal being part of the valuable amenity woodland known locally as The Spinney. This is the major access route into Rooksdown and these proposed changes will fundamentally change the sense of place that has been established since Rooksdown was created. Building a sense of place appears to be high on the agenda for Manydown but clearly not for neighbouring communities. Much talk was given in previous consultation events around Manydown being a good neighbour but I see little of this in these proposals.
I also fear that the selection of the roundabout options means many years of construction traffic causing significant disturbance to the residents of Roman Road.
Implementing the “T” junction option would have meant the opportunity for construction traffic impact to be managed to a minimum from the A339 from the very beginning of the project.
I am also disturbed to find that of the eleven key elements that only one that has no detailed associated with it is around the location of the traveller and gypsy site. Submitting an outline planning permission with detail in some areas and not others suggests that the application has been submitted prematurely. To allow for full and transparent consultation with all it would have been much more satisfactory if all the work had been carried out before the application had been submitted. Then and only then would all residents be able to comment after full consideration of the facts.
The last point I would like to make is important to understand what extra measures will be implemented to ensure satisfactory build quality in the new properties in Manydown. As a councillor representing an area with significant areas of new build housing one of the most essential steps would be to implement a process to add a level of quality assurance which does not appear to exist in the current system. As Manydown is publicly owned land surely there is an opportunity for the Borough and County Council to take extra steps to ensure problems that have been experienced in the past are not repeated on land that we are going to develop.”
5.3. Cllr Laura Edwards – Comments (received April 2017):
“Access – Roman Road and Wellington Terrace
During the consultation process the proposed ‘T-junction’ was the favoured option over a roundabout at the junction to the A339.
The roundabout option will be too close to properties in Winklebury and there should be no increase of noise pollution to existing homes.
Due to the increase of traffic with the Manydown and other developments in the town, a roundabout will slow traffic and create congestion. A ‘T-junction’ will allow further opportunities to manage additional traffic such as traffic lights.
If there is a ‘T-junction’ it raises the question as to whether it will be opened up as a temporary entrance to Manydown through Winklebury. This should not be the case and a clear construction route should be consulted on with local residents.
Schools
I request the location of the new secondary school is moved to close proximity to Winklebury. As Fort Hill is at risk of closing it would make sense to make the school a clear link between the two communities with each having a sense of ownership.
Gypsy and Traveller site
There is no clear site in the plans for a gypsies and traveller site. How can local resident’s comments on the plans if there is no clear guidance on what is where? A full briefing needs to be offered to residents so they have are able to voice their views and concerns regarding this issue.
Residents in the ward of Winklebury (and Clarke Estate) need be kept updated on all plans to allow them to comment. Manydown will be a close neighbour and we must ensure existing communities are not overlooked.”
5.4. Cllr Tristan Robinson Comments (received August 2017)
“So that you are aware, as ward councillor for the development I fully support Manydown fulfilling the remaining Gypsy and Traveller provision required as per the Local Plan, or subsequent advice which may reduce the provision. It’s vitally important to that Manydown delivers the full remainder of provision in any event.”
5.5. Archaeology Final Comments (received December 2019)
I would refer you to the recently submitted Environmental Assessments Addendum Summary, paragraph 5.4.3. This indicates that there have been no significant changes to the baseline assessment of Cultural Heritage matters. On that basis I would not raise any archaeological issues in relation to the amendments.
Previous Comments summarised as follows raising no objection with appropriate conditions:
The Manydown development is of great scale in a landscape that is rich in archaeological remains and the impact of the proposed development on archaeological remains is of course a material consideration.
Concern at the absence in what has been submitted of a positive heritage agenda. The development ould be opportunity for community involvement, presentation of archaeological sites within open space, education and involvement during archaeological projects and would recommend appropriate conditions in this regard.
I would draw your attention to the discussion set out within Chapter 8 of the Environmental Impact Assessment; section 4 of the Planning Statement, the Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (DBA), the archaeological evaluation report and the heritage report. It is important that the most significant archaeological remains considered for preservation within the development.
Trial trenching has established that three sites; Catterns Crossroads, Worting Wood and Scrapps Hill are not nationally important in relation to archaeology and do not present an overriding archaeological constraint, but might be dealt with by preservation within the master plan or by archaeological excavation.
Concur with the conclusions and requirements set out in Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (DBA). The development has the potential to include as yet unrecorded archaeological sites (para 4.12.7) the impact on which will need to be addressed and that in consequence further stages of field walking and trial trenching will be needed (DBA para 6.4, para 6.5). These are planned post determination and could be secured by use of an archaeological condition. I would concur, but I would note that in view of the extensive nature of the development, the rich archaeological landscape and the potential archaeological burden which might be invoked, such provision will need to be mature and extensive. Para 6.6 states that subject to careful master planning and an appropriate archaeological mitigation programme there appears to be no overriding archaeological area constraints to the proposed development of the site. I would concur.
This raises a number of considerations. I would recommend that the archaeological issues raised will need to be secured as the development proceeds. It is acknowledged in the archaeological DBA that an archaeological condition might be applied to secure these issues. I would recommend given the scale of the development that will roll out over many years that a number of archaeological conditions be attached to any planning permission issued.
Such archaeological provision is extensive and will presumably be rolled out in relation to the proposed phases of development. The applicant might find it useful to place these provisions within the context of an Archaeological Management Plan or possible an over arching written scheme of investigation, that will set out how the roll out of evaluation , mitigation , excavation, community engagement, publication and green infrastructure in relation to phases and to the significant known archaeological assets impacted, in order to bring clarity to the next steps should planning permission be issued.
I note that the archaeological/heritage content has been only marginally amended, and that with regard to the wider implications of impacts on the settings of the heritage assets. I would confirm that my previous comments would apply. I was a little disappointed that the opportunity presented by making amendments did not result in some of the concerns I raised in my consultation response (about community engagement and heritage within green infrastructure) being addressed, but perhaps it is still too premature, but I will continue to advocate these things as the heritage plans emerge.
5.6. Biodiversity
Final Comments
The submitted scheme includes a number of mitigation measures to avoid, mitigate and/or compensate impacts on certain ecological features/receptors present on site which are discussed below; however, despite these it is considered the proposed development will still result in: a moderate adverse impact on 22 skylark territories (and a further 2 if the separate alternative western strategic ecological corridor approved under planning ref 19/02649/FUL is delivered) the partial loss of a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) – contrary to Policy EM4 the deterioration and loss of arable field margins that support rare arable plants in their current location and spatial distribution the potential deterioration and partial loss of a green lane – contrary to Policy EM4 the likely deterioration of ancient woodlands – contrary to Policy EM4 and harm to the integrity of the link that the green lane currently provides for wildlife – contrary to Policy EM4.
If minded to grant planning permission because it is considered that there is an over-riding public need for this proposal which outweighs the need to safeguard biodiversity in terms of the ecological receptors listed above in their current location and that there is no satisfactory alternative then below are the necessary mitigation and compensatory measures that will need to be secured to ensure the impacts on biodiversity are reduced, mitigated and/or compensated as far as is possible within the current scheme. The implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to ensure important ecological receptors to be retained on site will be safeguarded during construction activities. Minimising the amount of habitats to be lost or wildlife corridors severed as much as possible The provision of alternative unbroken functional wildlife corridors to facilitate the movement of key species within the wider area to compensate current wildlife corridors being lost or degraded as a result of the development. The protection, enhancement, translocation and/or the creation of new or existing habitats to preserve and protect habitats and their ecological function or to compensate habitats lost. A long term, adequately funded management and monitoring plan for those habitats to be created, retained and/or enhanced. An effective access management strategy to minimise indirect impacts from recreational pressures and pet predation amongst others. A sensitive lighting strategy to safe guard the ecological function of habitats and their associated species retained on site. A Farmland Wildlife Mitigation Package to address the impacts on and long term habitat enhancement measures for Important Arable Flora and other important Farmland Wildlife. Specific Protected and/or Notable Species Mitigation Packages to address the impacts on and long term habitat enhancement measures for key species of birds, dormice, bats, badgers, brown hares, hedgehogs, invertebrates, amphibians and reptiles on site.
5.7. British Horse Society Final Comments
Object to this application on the grounds that it fails to demonstrate how the Manydown development will comply with Local Plan Policies EM1 – Landscape: that the development proposals must “respect the sense of place, sense of tranquillity or remoteness, and the quiet enjoyment of the landscape from public rights of way” and EM5 – Green Infrastructure: (a) that the council will work in partnership with the local community, developers, landowners, Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and other organisations to provide, protect, maintain and enhance the borough’s network of high quality ‘mulit-functional’ green space and (b) that development proposals will not be permitted unless it can be clearly demonstrated that “…there will be no overall negative impact on the provision of green infrastructure”.
Concerned that the application provides neither the detail of what the proposed rights of way improvement package is to include, nor the timescales for implementation, bearing in mind the legal processes involved in any upgrade or dedication of new rights of way or diversions of existing paths. In the May 2017 response we sought assurance that in providing ‘Access for All’ the applicant would include some provision for the local equestrian community.
The applicant met with Hampshire Countryside Service and BHS in November 2018 to discuss the impact of this new community on local rural roads on which people ride and drive their horses in order to get to safe off-road routes and the opportunity that this development represents to develop a fully inclusive recreational network for ALL vulnerable road users including pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.
Would be happy to resume work with the Applicant and Hampshire Countryside Service to address this.
5.8. Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) Comments (received May 2018)
The Governing Body of the CCG considered the formal request by BDBC to express its preference as to which of two sites would be best suited for community provision incorporating health and wellbeing identified in the Manydown Development Brief. In making our preference we have taken into account both our aspiration to provide health facilities (scope and scale to be determined) in Winklebury and were cognisant of the background as set out above. At our Governing Body meeting in January 2018 the decision below was recorded.
The Governing Body;
“agreed to advise the council of its preferred site as being in the south part of the Manydown development as indicated on the attached map (marked in yellow); it was recognised that this is not in the first phase of the Manydown development. The Governing Body also confirmed that the CCG is committed to working with the public, NHS England, our partner local authorities and our providers to establish the scope and scale of health and wellbeing services to be provided across the area and specifically to Manydown residents”
This decision recognised the capacity to serve the first stage (East Manydown) with the proposed wellbeing regeneration project.
5.9. Community and Sports Facilities Comments (received September 2018)
The Infrastructure Delivery Strategy supporting the Local Plan identifies the need for Community Buildings of:
1 x 750sqm new community centre 2 x 375sqm satellite buildings
The proposed development now seeks up to 3520 households and the amount of community space above is therefore viewed as an absolute minimum.
Further opportunities could be taken to support community functions/activities of the new community either within or around the proposed development – this could include flexible space within schools or the Country Park. There is currently limited capacity in the neighbouring community facilities which are not located conveniently for access from the proposed development.
Community facilities can host early years activities but should be in addition to space allocated for exclusive full time nursery provision (the two could be co- located).
5.10. Conservation Final Comments
Objects:
The application is still considered to be unacceptable in historic environment terms but could be acceptable subject to significant revisions (requested prior to and during this application but not made) including: Increasing the buffer zone between Worting Conservation Area’s (WCA) northern boundary and the development to at least 25 metres in depth and at various points greater depth, to be calculated and justified with the CAs rural setting in mind; Relocating the proposed Urban Centre to the west of the hamlet, further north into the site to reduce its impact on the western approach to the Conservation Area.
5.11. Department for Communities and Local Government Final Comments
Acknowledge receipt of the environmental statement relating to the above proposal. I confirm that we have no comment to make on the environmental statement.
5.12. Environmental Health Final Comments
No objection subject to conditions and HCC Highway approval of the TA and Chapter 14 of the ES and all relevant supporting documents.
5.13. Environment Agency Final Comments
Consider that planning permission should only be granted to the proposed development as submitted if planning conditions are imposed as set out in our response. Without these conditions, the proposed development on this site poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and would object to the application. Have no further comments to make and our recommended conditions relating to water quality, as outlined in our response dated 30 March 2017, still apply.
5.14. Forestry Commission Comments (received August 2018)
Ancient woodland is an irreplaceable habitat. National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 118 states ‘planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss’. The Forestry Commission is a non-statutory consultee on development in or within 500m of ancient woodland.
5.15. HCC Education Final Comments summarised as follows:
Location of schools – yet to be determined but should be undertaken early in the master planning exercise and prior to any reserved matters applications.
Travel to School – The location of schools and their relationship to other community facilities such as nurseries or pre-schools needs to be determined. This needs to be planned to ensure access can be through active travel rather than relying on car usage. The concerns over health and safety, air quality and congestion around school sites should be a major consideration when designing location and access to these facilities.
The master plan should ensure that schools are not subjected to poor air quality due to the proximity of roads or other polluting elements and should be embedded in residential development away from major roads, accessed via green corridors with limited opportunities for parking close to the school and vehicular access to the school site only for staff, visitors and deliveries. Important that walking and cycling routes are provides to local secondary schools to promote active travel from Manydown to existing school provision. This equally applies to primary schools locally prior to the provision of on-site primary schooling.
Western Primary School Provision – Applicant offers serviced land suitable for one 2FE primary school with a useable site area of 2.2ha. This provides no scope to manage any increase in pupil yield. An additional 0.8ha should be identified, to be provided free of charge, should pupil yield exceed the 2FE. No assessment has been undertaken as to whether 2.2 ha would be sufficient as it will depend on a full site assessment and viability study. Further work is required before a final site area can be agreed.
Secondary School Provision – The provision of additional secondary school places to mitigate the impact of this development has yet to be quantified. The predicted pupil yield is 5 forms of entry (30 pupils represents a form of entry). This expected yield of additional secondary age pupils requires a new secondary school site to be included in the development.
The developer highlights provision of a “3G Artificial Pitch through a cascade mechanism, as either a shared facility with the Secondary School site together with a Community Use Agreement, OR on another part of the site as agreed with the LPA, OR to provide a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision”.
The strategy for provision of secondary education facilities to mitigate the impact form the development has yet to be confirmed. It may be that no secondary school is provided on site which removes one option for the provision of this facility.
School Phasing - The phasing of school places will be reviewed as the detail of the development emerges and clearer plans can be confirmed based on build-out rates and type and tenure of the properties. It is intended that the new schools do serve the new housing development, however the school admission policy does not preclude pupils form outside the area applying for a school place and they may be successful in gaining a place at the school subject to local demand for places.
5.16. HCC Extra Care Housing Final Comments: The County Council is the authority responsible for Adult Social Care and would like the Local Planning Authority to reconsider the requirement for Extra Care housing to be provided as part of the development in accordance with BDBC Local Plan Policy CN4, Housing SPD and the Manydown SPD.
5.17. HCC Highways Final Comments: No objection subject to conditions and planning obligations. Full comments set out at Appendix 2.
5.18. HCC Lead Local Flood Authority Final Comments: No objection subject to conditions.
5.19. HCC Countryside Services (including as Local Highway Authority for Public Rights of Way) Final Comments: Concerns raised in relation to application proposals for the provision of suitable on- site and off-site Rights of Way improvements. Package of s106 requirements for these improvements are required to make the development acceptable in planning terms.
5.20. HCC Waste and Resource Management Comments (received May 2017): Acknowledgement of additional pressures for waste and recycling services as a result of the development proposed. In light of pressure on existing facilities request consideration is given to providing a 1.5 hectare site that could be utilised for a new facility.
5.21. Health and Wellbeing Partnership- Comments summarised as follows:
Believe that the stated principles of the development set a strong foundation for Manydown to be a healthy community. We see strong connections with the priorities of the Partnership including:
Be Physically Active – welcome the intention for Manydown to be a walkable neighbourhood and for there to be measures to promote walking and cycling.
Be mentally resilient – importance of green spaces and attractive built environment.
Be aware of harm – Explore opportunities for healthy eating and not siting fast food outlets close to schools.
Be socially connected – Endorse intention to engage a community development worker from the outset.
Welcome provision of a new health centre and recognise that whilst housing mix following at next stage of planning process; emphasise the need for accommodation and services to support aging population or those with dementia and other sensory or mobility impairments.
5.22. Historic England: Final Comments Objection – full comments set out in Appendix 3.
5.23. Housing : Final Comments
Under the policy requirements of CN1 (as amended) development proposals for more than 10 dwellings will be expected to incorporate 40% affordable housing, with 70% of these affordable dwellings for rent and 30% intermediate tenures. At least 15% of the affordable dwellings will be required to meet enhanced accessibility or adaptability standards to enable people to stay in their home as their needs change. However where it is demonstrated that the overall percentage requirements of the policy are not viable – in accordance with the prescribed RICS valuation process – then reductions and/or adjustments to the policy requirement will be made. Based upon a viable development of 3,200 dwellings, compliance with policy CN1 would result in a requirement for 1,280 affordable homes on site, including 896 for rent and 384 intermediate. At least 192 affordable homes would be required to meet enhanced accessibility or adaptability standards to enable people to stay in their home as their needs change. It is expected that the 40% affordable housing is retained across each Key Phase. The exact housing mix will be determined at reserved matters stage, however the Applicant has expressed their intentions to meeting the council’s CN1 affordable housing requirements, which is welcomed by the housing department. I would note that with regards to C2 and C3 units, whilst C3 extra care units can be considered as part of an affordable housing package (subject to general caveats in relation to nomination agreements and rent levels), C2 provision would not be considered as part of an affordable housing package due to the nature of its residential and institutional-type provision. I would note that when the exact housing mix is determined, the housing department would expect to see a reasonable mix of the size and type of accommodation proposed at the site, with units not exceeding Local Housing Allowance rates, in order to meet local demand.
- Housing Need Evidence As of 6 December 2019, the following data confirms the accommodation requirements of households on the council’s housing register seeking social rented housing: Borough
One bedroom accommodation 3163 Two bedroom accommodation 875
Three bedroom accommodation 386 Four bedroom accommodation 203 Five+ bedroom accommodation 44 Total 4671
The table below sets out the accommodation requirements of households listed on the sub-regional “Help to Buy” Register as of 6 December 2019, and who have expressed an interest in intermediate forms, including Rental Schemes and Shared Ownership within the Basingstoke and Deane borough.
Basingstoke and Deane One bedroom accommodation 1290 Two bedroom accommodation 2110 Three bedroom accommodation 800 Four bedroom accommodation 49 Five+ bedroom accommodation 2 Total 4251
It should be noted that the above tables only provide evidence of current applicants seeking affordable social rented housing and shared-ownership housing, as taken from the ‘General Need’ and ‘Transfer’ elements of the Council’s Housing Register, and the Help to Buy Register. The tables do not reflect total housing need but provide a snapshot of presently registered need and demand, for the varying sizes of accommodation.
These tables show an overwhelming need for affordable housing within the borough. The housing department would expect that the affordable accommodation falls within space standards required by the Homes and Communities Agency – now Homes England – and within nationally described space standards.
It will also be necessary for the affordable housing element to accord with standard mechanisms associated with Council policy and practise, including provision by Registered Providers; and for the outline S106 agreement to address the following delivery, occupation and nomination requirements (in summary and in principle):-
- Certain Delivery
Approval in writing by the Borough Council of a detailed Affordable Housing Scheme at Reserved Matters Stage, defining the type, tenure, tenure model, size and location of each Affordable Dwelling including those Affordable Dwellings to be built to meet enhanced adaptable and accessible standards. That no market dwellings may be occupied until the delivery of the affordable housing element is certain. That no more than 75% of the market dwellings may be occupied until the affordable dwellings have been constructed in any given phase.
- Form of provision
Affordable Rented or Social Rented Housing and Shared Ownership units to be owned and managed by Registered Providers.
- Council Nomination
It is expected that first and subsequent occupation of the policy compliant affordable rented dwellings will be for households in housing need as nominated by the Council, as well as the intermediate units which will be nominated by the Council (or a body approved by the Council). That affordable dwellings will be occupied by households with a local connection (as defined in the S106 agreement)
Other standard mechanisms and exemptions to be included within a legal planning agreement would take account of legislative rights, and the needs of lenders to dispose of affordable homes under repossession conditions.
5.24. Landscape Final Comments
As discussed previously, there is no objection to the principle of development (Residential development of up to a maximum of 3520 homes with associated facilities, all matters reserved apart from primary means of vehicular access) however there remain issues with some of the proposals as shown on the parameter plans and within the landscape strategy, as well as the addendums. These are summarised in the comments below.
Setting to Development
As an extension to the urban setting of Rooksdown, Winklebury and Buckskin, it is considered important to ensure that there is some connection between the new development and the existing residential areas. The proposed linkage routes and access points go some way to providing this but clarification is required as to how it is intended for the new development to relate and connect to existing adjacent neighbourhoods. It is understood that more detail will be provided at the next stage of the application.
Significant buffer to the A339 is welcomed as it will assist in screening the development from this road corridor. However the significant new roundabout highway junction at this end of the site, which involves a great deal of land take. Concerned about the landscape impacts of this proposed junction, and have asked for further concept landscape proposals to demonstrate what the landscape approach will be to soften the impacts of this. No additional information has been provided about this at the current time. As such at this stage it will be something that will have to be explored at the site wide and key phase stages, which is disappointing given its importance. We would expect to see concept proposals at the very least being submitted at Site Wide Framework stage.
There are a number of improvements to the approach to Worting Conservation Area from a broad landscape perspective, in relation to a looser form of development and maximum of 2 storey built form. However, concern remains about the limited space between the development and the Conservation Area boundary, and the impacts that will have on the special qualities and character of Worting.
In landscape terms, the 20m buffer proposed needs to be increased as currently too narrow to retain any sense of openness, as the majority will need to be planted with structure planting.
The re-alignment of Worting Road (B3400). This is a historic rural approach to Worting, which is evident within the 1870-1880 Ordnance Survey maps. It has a strong, rural character, and any re-alignment of the road in order to provide 2 access junctions in close proximity will inevitably have significant and adverse impacts on the character of this sensitive approach to Worting and then Basingstoke. This is noted in the applicants submitted Landscape Assessment, which concludes that there would be a ‘significant adverse’ impact on the character in this location.
Any 3-storey development along Worting Road. The storey heights plan still suggests that there could be some 3-storey development fronting Worting Road, and given the sensitivities along this road corridor I would advise that this would cause harm to local landscape character and visual amenity.
Given the rural character, any new planting at Scrapps Hill location should be soft and naturalistic in character, comprising entirely native species, in order to allow the development to blend with its surrounding context. It is an inappropriate location to impose formality or urbanising features, and as such amendments will be necessary to the relevant sections of the Landscape Strategy. As such at this stage it will be something that will have to be explored at the site wide and key phase stages, which is disappointing given its importance. We would expect to see concept proposals at the very least being submitted at Site Wide Framework stage.
Concerns also remain in relation to building storey heights:
Storey heights of up to 4 storeys adjacent to the Country Park remain too high and should be 2 storeys at the perimeter.
Storey heights should be no taller than 2 storeys along Worting Road and set back from the road frontage.
More clarification on how SUDs features are to be dealt with as will involve large amounts of open space and soft landscaping.
More information needed on hard and soft landscaping and would expect to see concept and strategic proposals for hard and soft landscape within Site Wide and Key Framework stages.
Initial proposals for the Country Park are welcomed.
5.25. Natural England: Initial Comments
No objection – subject to appropriate mitigation being secured.
We consider that without appropriate mitigation the application would have detrimental harm on the habitats and species associated with this site.
In order to mitigate these adverse effects and make the development acceptable the following mitigation measures are required: A Landscape Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) and A Biodiversity Management and Monitoring Plan (BMMP) Final Comments
Farmland wildlife and arable flora The revised ‘Appendix F Ecology and Nature Conservation in ES Chapter 9’ and Updated draft Section 106 Heads of Terms within the revised Planning Statement outline that a financial contribution, or other relevant ecological mitigation project, to offset the moderate adverse impact on 22 skylark territories (and a further 2 where the separate permitted ecological mitigation ref 19/02649/FUL is implemented) will be secured by an appropriate planning condition or obligation, the details of which will be agreed ‘alongside the Site wide Framework submission and prior to the implementation of any key phase’. The supporting revised Appendix F2: Farmland Wildlife Mitigation Framework outlines the intention that the compensation will take the form of a more holistic approach to supporting farmland birds. The ES recommends this is incorporated into a Farmland Wildlife and Pollinator Package to be agreed with relevant stakeholders. It is anticipated this will be secured by condition, and delivered and funded separately to any existing or future Countryside Stewardship schemes.
Provided the FWPP is secured as described above, that requires the need for agreement between relevant stakeholders to ensure an appropriate scale and long- term certainty of mitigation can be delivered, Natural England is satisfied the impacts on farmland wildlife, including skylark and arable margins, are appropriately addressed at this Outline stage of the application.
Ancient woodland The supporting covering letter (Tibbalds, 9th December 2019) outlines that a Woodland Management Plan will be provided and secured by planning condition. Natural England welcomes this and advises the planning condition is worded to ensure that such a Plan will detail measures, including appropriately sized buffer zones, to protect and enhance all ancient woodlands affected by the proposed development with details of long term funding, implementation and management, and to be agreed with relevant stakeholders prior to the implementation of any key phase (as with the FWPP). It is recommended the specific wording of such a planning condition is agreed with the Council’s biodiversity team.
Nitrates It is noted from the covering letter that waste water from the proposed development will be directed to Chineham waste water treatment works, which ultimately discharges to the Thames river system. Therefore Natural England confirm a nutrient loading budget is not required with regards to impacts on Solent European protected sites.
5.26. Network Rail: Final Comments: It appears the amendments do not impact Network Rail therefore we have no objections to the proposed changes.
Previously Network Rail confirmed that it has no objections to the principle of the rail bridge as identified in the Parameters Plan, nor is there an objection to the proposed location. It is physically possible to construct a bridge in any location adjacent to the application site.
However, it is important that the process, complexities and constraints of constructing such a bridge are acknowledged at this stage, and factored into future discussions and application requirements.
A previous response also referred to the requirement for mitigation measures in relation to level crossings (Parlour Gate Crossings) mitigation measures. Following a site visit in July 2019 with Network Rail and confirmation of the relationship between this point on the line and the application site, it is confirmed that no mitigation for this development is required however Network Rail would be seeking to discuss permanent solutions for this crossing in any future phases of this development working closely with the developers.
5.27. Parks and Open Space Final Comments
Acceptable in principle but the following minor amendments/additional information are needed:
On the basis of the application description of up to 3520 dwellings and everything reserved except the primary means of access onto the A339, B3400 and Roman Road is acceptable in principle. The Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan and other documents submitted to inform the application are not acceptable as there are inconsistencies in terms of the double counting of multi-functional green space with other incompatible functions such as Biodiversity mitigation and allotments, and it does not address my concerns expressed previously about the size and location of the Neighbourhood Parks. The final location, size and design of multi-functional green space must be approved as part of future submissions including the Site Wide Framework and Key Phase Framework submissions. My particular concerns remain that areas are being shown as MFGS on the parameter plan which will not be able to fulfil that function because of conflicting functions also shown on the plan. The western corridor is one example. It is shown as both MFGS and Biodiversity mitigation. The changes made to the west of this corridor, to address biodiversity mitigation concerns, do not fundamentally change the issues raised in my last comments in relation to its function as MFGS for informal recreation. The two functions cannot be accommodated within this corridor. As a part of the next stages of the application further work will be required to demonstrate that the total quantity of MFGS and Equipped Play required to meet the Local Plan Green Space Standards can be delivered in addition to the Country Park, and in addition to inaccessible green infrastructure such as biodiversity mitigation areas, allotments, formal sports provision and drainage solutions.
5.28. Planning Policy and Implementation (Transport) Final Comments
Important for the longer term approach to the site to include provision for MRT. Some concern regarding the achievement of bus services proposed but recognising that this is just a public transport strategy at this stage – the need for early and continued dialogue with service operators and relevant BDBC/HCC officers needs to be recognised. Provision of bus stops is noted as an intention of the application but this needs to be bus shelters constructed to BDBC specification.
As an alternative to the proposed cycle route, consideration should be given to securing a contribution towards an upgrade of the path and footbridge to the north of the Leisure Park in line with proposals currently being worked up jointly between HCC and BDBC. This would provide a faster and safer route in to town for both cyclists and walkers for which contributions could be secured within the section 106 agreement.
5.29. Southern Gas Network: No objection, informative provided.
5.30. Planning Policy Final Comments
There remain concerns that the mix of market homes should be understood to provide a framework for future reserved matters application. Since previous comments in September 2018, there are a number of relevant planning policy changes that should be taken into account in the determination of the application:
5-year Housing Land Supply
1. The NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to identify a five year supply of specific deliverable sites to meet housing needs. The Housing Delivery Test results were published in February 2020. Basingstoke and Deane have now met the rolling three year housing target with completions of 2,589 units compared to a requirement of 2,453 – 105%. As a consequence there are no longer any government penalties that impact upon the land supply position and the borough returns to a 5% buffer rather than the 20% buffer required by the 2018 test results.
2. The outcome for our land supply position is that we can now demonstrate 4.86 years of deliverable land supply. Whilst this is an improved position, it still falls short of the 5 year requirement and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development continues to apply.
3. At the current time the council is unable to demonstrate that it has 5 years’ worth of deliverable sites. This means that policies relating to housing delivery in the borough’s adopted Local Plan and made Neighbourhood Plans are currently considered to be out of date. Planning applications will therefore need to be considered in line with paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF, which states that where relevant policies are considered out of date permission will be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. The development should therefore be assessed in light of this ‘titled balance’.
4. It is considered that the overall impact of the lack of 5-year housing land supply (HLS) does not impact upon the principle of development as the site is allocated through Policy SS3.10 of the Local Plan. However, the lack of a 5-year HLS means that the ‘policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date’ (NPPF para 11(d)). In this case, Local Plan Policy SS3.10 (Manydown), which allocates the site for development and sets a number of detailed site-specific development criteria, would be the most important policy.
Wootton St Lawrence Neighbourhood Plan
5. It should be noted that the council has now ‘made’ (adopted) the Wootton St Lawrence Neighbourhood Plan. This now forms part of the statutory development plan for that part of the site that falls within Wootton St Lawrence Parish (see map on page 10 of the Plan). 6. Although the majority of the Plan specifically does not relate to development at Manydown, it includes a number of policies that explicitly do. These relate to:
•Policy WSL1: Local Gap (which overlaps some of the land identified as country park); and •Policy WSL3: Public Rights of Way, which requires the footpaths within the Manydown Country Park to be integrated with the wider PRoW network.
5.31. Ramblers No comments received.
5.32. Sports Provision Final Comments No objection subject to conditions and/or s106.
5.33. Thames Water Final Comments: The magnitude of this development is such that significant wastewater network and treatment infrastructure upgrades will be required to accommodate the development. Thames Water request that the following condition be added to any planning permission.
5.34. West Berks Council Initial Comments Holding objection
Concerned regarding the impact of additional traffic on the A339 through Newbury as a result of this development. Junctions along the A339 within the centre of Newbury are often severely congested and there is an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) centred around the A339 / A343 junction within Newbury. West Berkshire council as Local highway Authority is concerned that additional traffic to and from Manydown will worsen congestion and air quality for the people of Newbury and West Berkshire. The Council is already struggling to accommodate traffic on the A339 from housing developments from its own Core Strategy and Housing Site Allocations DPD. The provision of additional traffic from Manydown will only add to this difficulty.
5.35. Woodland Trust Initial Comments Objection:
The Woodland Trust objects to this application on the basis of the proposed damage to Worting Wood and Wootton Copse, both of which are ancient woodland.
5.36. Urban Design: Final Comments
No objection, summary comments:
I am satisfied that a capacity of 3520, together with the other proposed uses, could be successfully achieved on the site in urban design terms. The Parameter Plans and Design and Access Statement (DAS) describe how a capacity of 3,520 dwellings and other uses could be distributed around the site. In particular, the Building Heights and Density Parameter Plan provides guidance on what ranges of densities would be appropriate for each part of the site. I address the qualitative aspects of this Parameter Plan in more detail later in this response. It is sufficient to say here that the building height and density ranges proposed, and as augmented by the other Parameter Plans and illustrative information within the DAS, present a convincing picture of a successful place.
It is noted that the coloured blocks of housing density ranges in the Building Heights and Density Parameter Plan extend over a number of areas which are expected to not be occupied by housing. An example are the areas which are proposed for schools in the Land Use Parameter Plan; another example is the likelihood that there will be some freestanding non-housing uses such as some retail units, a community use and indoor sports facility on land which is assigned a housing density in the Parameter Plan. However, even when the potential for housing in these areas is discounted, it is still estimated that the net housing density of the residential areas will be in the region of 33 dwellings per hectare assuming a total capacity of 3,520 units. Such an average net density, when viewed in the context of the Parameter Plans and the information in the DAS, gives every expectation that a capacity of 3,520 dwellings together with the non- housing uses can be successfully accommodated within the site.
The four Parameter Plans (Land Use, Building Heights and Density, Principal Access and Movement, and Open Space and Landscape) are proposed to form part of any planning permission. These plans, in combination with the application description and the detailed vehicular access plans, comprise the framework which will guide the future development of the site. I am satisfied that these Parameter Plans will form the basis of a successful scheme. Confidence in the Parameter Plans is demonstrated by the material found in the Design and Access Statement including a Vision, Development Principles, Strategic Masterplan Concept, Principal Masterplan, Urban Design Framework and potential Character Areas. Whilst this material only has illustrative status, I believe that it paints a holistic, internally consistent and convincing portrait of how Manydown can be developed in a successful manner in accordance with the Parameter Plans. The following paragraphs explain in more detail the key content of this illustrative material.
5.37. Joint Waste Client Team Final Comments
The Joint Waste Client Team require sight of a specific Site Layout to be able to comment on the waste collection arrangements. At this point, we believe this is still in outline planning stages and we have no further comments at this time.
6. Public Observations
344 letters of objection received over the course of the application and amended/additional submissions raising the following concerns:
6.1. Principle of development
Ludicrous to propose such a large development. Disgrace – just how many houses do we need in Basingstoke. This is bad planning – it is essential to provide easy access. What are you hoping to achieve by building such a huge development on beautiful open space. Saddened by the Manydown development. Moved to Firs Way to give children the almost ‘life in the country’ feeling. Natural open spaces should be retained for mental health and to absorb noise and air pollution. This lovely area is so important for Basingstoke. Our money paid for it to stay there as it is.
6.2. Neighbouring Amenity
Living on Augustus Drive our house is one house away from Roman Road and near the A339. We will be affected both visually and from increased noise. Can’t get into Roman Road now from Kenilworth in the morning rush hour. Concerned about how our road (Firs Way) will turn into an even more cut through than it already is. Proposal has many positives but lacking consideration for already established neighbouring communities.
6.3. Sustainability and Climate Change
Strain on infrastructure in Basingstoke. Having declared a climate emergency are we really suggesting that residents take an extra mile on the Worting Road to Buckskin Way roundabout and back to turn left into Old Kempshott Lane?
6.4. Access and highways
Concern that roads will be unable to cope and concern about increased traffic and congestion. Cars will use Hawthorn, Elmwood and Firs Way as a cut through- rat running. Concern about traffic assessment assumptions and do not consider that main street could accommodate traffic proposed. Three lanes not required. No consideration to linking to the M3. Size and scale of roundabout and impact on Rooksdown – no need for filter lane. Preference for a T junction on the A339. Rat running through existing communities. Concern over loss of dog walking and walking routes. Closure of Roman Road will be disruptive. Concern about lorry park on the site. Cycling connections are required. Concern about the impact on the village of Ramsdell. Impact of additional traffic on Gillies Drive, Florence Way and into Nightingale Gardens – this residential route is not suitable for further increase in traffic. In relation to Old Kempshott Lane - why not put in a mini-roundabout or move the existing traffic lights. The golf course holds weddings, wakes, conferences and parties at various times throughout the year, especially at Christmas and residential roads through Rooksdown Estate are not suitable for additional traffic. Object to the proposal to ban right turning traffic movements at the junction of the A339 with Rooksdown Lane – little evidence or assessment of the perceived safety issues to justify this ban. No suitable route for redirected traffic is identified or assessed. Impact on access to the golf course and Saxon Wood School. Volume of heavy goods vehicles, car transporters and 40 tonne lorries that are using Roman Road/Roman Way as a short cut from the B3400 to the A339. Road signs at the start of Roman Way stating NO HGV along this road has made no difference. The noise of large vehicles along Roman Road/Roman Way is affecting amenity – surely there could be a weight restriction along this road? Sufficient consideration needs to be given to existing businesses so that the road layout can accommodate heavy goods vehicles. Total failure to allow any provision for the traffic from the A339 and the villages from the north and west of the site around Basingstoke to travel to the south. Western bypass is not likely to be built for decades. Can you confirm it would take less than an hour to get from Winklebury Way onto Roman Road during peak times. Object to the proposal outlined in Appendix A: Junction Technical Notes VS9 Old Kempshott Lane technical note. Understand that if planning permission given then the right turn from Worting Road to Old Kempshott Lane will be blocked. This road is a lifeline for those living in Highland development (properties on Wiltshire Crescent). Old Kempshott Lane proposal would push traffic past a primary school at rush hour as they would use Chiltern Way instead which has inadequate footpath access along this route and increase in traffic would annoy lots of residents. Loss of trade for an existing business at the entrance to Old Kempshott Lane.
6.5. Construction Traffic
The CEMP (MSD11R) identifies that construction traffic will be routed down Roman Road until an on-site haul road is constructed. This will increase the traffic flow between its junction and the A339 and make the junction of Roman Road and Wellington Terrace more hazardous than it is already. The new Northern Access recognises this with the closure of the junction between Roman Road and the A339 it is illogical and dangerous to have construction access coming off Roman Road. Neither the TA not the Air Quality Assessment appear to consider the increased traffic due to construction vehicles along Roman Road during the interim period until the new northern and southern accesses are functional.
6.6. Transport Assessment and Air Quality Assessment
The TA and Air Quality Assessment states that traffic speeds along Roman Road are based on the existing 40mph limit. This is not appropriate now and less as development proceeds on Manydown. There is a need for pedestrians and cyclists to cross Roman Road at link points and the speed limit on Roman Road should be reduced to 30mph.
6.7. Location of housing within the site
Impact on amenity including overshadowing Impact due to noise and pollution Crime and disorder
6.8. Schools
Object to proposed construction of a school adjacent to the oil pipeline and also construction of any buildings close to it. What consideration to health and safety and what if the pipeline were accidentally damaged during the lifetime of the development rather than just during construction. The corridor should be wider than the 6m proposed. Closure of Fort Hill Secondary School. The application refers to the building of 2 primary schools and land allocated for a secondary school. The plans indicate that these sites will be used for residential if not required for education. This is not appropriate for such a size of development. The provision of a secondary school should be a priority. Impact on Chiltern Primary School as a result of additional traffic. Increase in traffic on Chiltern Way would affect provision of 'bikeability' which has only just be provided at the school.
6.9. Ecology and Landscaping
Loss of part of Spinney woodland adjacent to the A339. Loss of fields, wildlife and habitat. Impact on wildlife and loss of habitat. Loss of woodland.
6.10. Gypsy and Traveller Provision
This element was not mentioned in the public consultation document and is not prominent enough within the application literature. Suggest Peak Copse re-opened as cheaper and easier to do. Concern over lack of information on the exact location of gypsy and traveller pitches and lack of consultation. Inclusion of Gypsy and Traveller Pitch Provision seems to be a complete waste of money and land. Proposed too close to existing housing.
6.11. Heads of Terms
The Head of Terms for s106 does not include any mitigation measures associated with the immediate area around Manydown that will be impacted more than the areas that are included and more remote from the development. The s106 should include a reduction in speed limit on Roman Road, pedestrian crossings and traffic calming. 6.12. Waste Water and Sewerage
Not clear what provision is being made for waste water and sewerage, after issues in Buckskin areas in the recent past these must be planned carefully and not put other areas of Basingstoke at risk. 6.13. Other Matters
Possible sewerage treatment plant and concerns about the location. Noise and pollution. Concern over lack of detail and information in this outline submission. Impact on archaeology – doesn’t appear to have been surveyed appropriately. Results should be in the public domain. Protection of Winklebury Camp important. New roads will smash up the archaeological site. Height of buildings. Effect on neighbouring communities. Feel more consultation is needed. Impact on health from vehicle emissions.
Two letters with Comments and summarised as follows:
Accept the principle of development. No doubt that soil strata could support the integration of sustainable surface water drainage but doubt there is sufficient fowl water sewer network capacity. Cannot find evidence that the development could provide adequate network capacity. Inspector sought to prevent coalescence through landscape mitigation measures and careful planning of roof heights. I trust that appropriate planning conditions can be imposed to limit roof ridge heights within parameter plan areas when considering impact on Public Rights of Way. It is accepted that the development would result in some habitat loss. There are some positive contributions. Important that there are plenty of safe cycle ways connecting areas such as train station, Festival Place and they should have their own cycle lanes. A cycle way around the Country Park would be a good place for children to learn to cycle safely. Please consider innovative parking facilities such as those in London. Think that Traveller pitches should be located in the south of the development. There should be a strong emphasis on establishing relationships between residents and health providers in the community. Think about location of facilities from the point of view of people who find it hard to get around. Houses and facilities should be accessible. Concerned there is no mention of a place of worship being provided. Think that sports facilities will be a great asset to the local community. Would support development if 50% houses have solar panels.
Three letters of support:
Fully support linear park. Linear park will reduce speeds and create considerate development for Winklebury. Positive impact of pedestrian and cycling opportunities in the linear park.
6.14. Basingstoke South West Action Group (SWAG)
Summary of objections:
The modifications in relation to transport do nothing to address the severe road congestion that will be the result of this development. They do not contain any significant proposals to drive modal shift to either cycling or public transport. The new arrangement for the B3400 will encourage more traffic from the development to head westwards onto Oakley road network including Trenchard Lane. The A339 access arrangements will result in that route being less attractive to Manydown residents to the north of the B3400 wishing to access destinations in the southwest. Also no provision has been made for protected cycling lanes at either of these junctions. The traffic counts taken in Trenchards Lane in March 2017 show a current average in the AM peak of 91 vehicles and an average in the PM peak of 86 vehicles. If the increase in traffic in the AM peak is as predicted in the Systra report this would represent an increase of 153.85%, not the 24.96% claimed. Recommend that the analysis of the impact of Manydown on country lanes south of Oakley towards the A30 should be reassessed in light of the new traffic data. It is unclear whether revised TA takes account of HCC comments about the calculation of queue length. The numerical basis for a reassignment of 50% is unclear and, if this is not borne out in practice, the true impact on the Fiveways junction may have been underestimated and the TA cannot be considered to be reliable in this respect. Despite the further modification of the junction, the tables show that all 4 arms of Fiveways Junction will be over capacity during the morning peak and 3 of them over capacity during the afternoon peak. There should be a comprehensive plan at this stage for the routing of the link road from the new roundabout at Hounsome Fields to the B3400 at Scrapps Hill, including the detailed planning for the crossing of the railway. Inadequacy of the evaluation of the visual impact of the development on residential properties to the southwest. Lack of a sense of identity as part of the built form to counteract the development being simply an extension of urban sprawl. Inadequacy of proper planning for the foul drainage infrastructure and mitigation of the risks of flooding. Inadequacy of the transport and travel plans, especially in the areas of cycling infrastructure, plans for real and substantial modal shift, flawed traffic analyses, residual severe congestion at key junctions, lack of any examination of the potential of rat running as a result of the admitted congestion. Failure to propose any realisable and measurable policies that will drive modal shift. Modal shift is essential as TA appears to show that this development will result gridlock of the roads to the west of the town. Although revised proposal contain significant reviews of flood risk, there has been no change to foul sewage proposals. SWAG remain of the opinion that re- routing all sewerage northwards through the Popley Trunk Sewer should be evaluated and costed. The documents and plans associated with the application are characterised by vagueness that could have grave consequences for downstream residents of Basingstoke. No account made in the foul water upgrades necessary to accommodate Hounsome Fields and the Golf Course. MSD12 still fails to assess the visual impact on views from Old Down, the local community open space towards the AONB and views from the south. Endorse the comments made by Cycle Basingstoke. Also contend that the Travel Plan is not fit for purpose as it fails to indicate any material activity or provision that could be reasonably expected to realise modal shift. If BDBC approves this it would be actively enabling this site unsustainable on the basis of a severe effect on local transport.
Comment: Pleased to see that there has been a response in relation to building heights adjacent to Worting Road Farm and Scrapps Hill boundary. Reduced building heights from 17-13m and 14-10m is a positive improvement.
6.15. Natural Basingstoke
Summary of objections and comments:
The proposed north-south linkage is not substantial enough. The woodlands in the proposed Country Park should be extended southwards to St John’s Copse and to Well’s Copse. Marvel Row Copse should be extended to the B3400 and the new woodland should be extended south of Pack Lane and over the railway line. Advance planting – question why this application came forward prior to the objections to the outline application being fully considered. There is a need for culverts and green bridges to allow wildlife to bridge over or under roads. It is noted that the developer wants this development to be exemplar site of best practice and there are several significant green corridors that are either existing or introduced that are illustrated to be severed by the proposed roads. The principle of a continuous tree canopy along the B3400 and a single point tree canopy across Pack Lane are both welcomed. The advance planting proposal is a marginal improvement on the 15m wide ‘habitat corridor’ proposed in the original outline submission (now reduced to 6m on the eastern side of the lane).
6.16. Hatchwarren Nature Group Comments
Mitigation is highly dependent on areas that are multi-functional and therefore not clear if enough land is being set aside to mitigate for relevant wildlife or suitable management, or new land for restoring affected habitat species that have been declined or lost. Also no analysis of projected usage. There should be a clear process for detailed analysis, design and ongoing management to take account of population and pet pressures. Country Park is an opportunity to reconnect people with animals including grazing and ancient woodland management. Evidence that the land set aside for ecological purposes (including wildlife corridors) will increase relevant priority habitats and species such as Grey Partridge and Lapwing. Certainty that land set aside for ecological whether on or off site will be secured and protected in perpetuity.
6.17. Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust Comments
Agree with principle of green infrastructure being multi-functional but concerned with the use of the country park as both the primary recreation resource on the site as well as the primary area for mitigation for protected species and habitats. It is therefore important that whilst some green infrastructure will be multi- functional, sanctuary areas with restricted access are also created. We remain concerned that there is insufficient green infrastructure within the main development and that proposed mitigation will not function as such. We therefore consider that more space should be made available for recreation within the main development area and be designed in such a way so as not to conflict with proposed ecological corridors. Welcome the inclusion of a minimum of 20 metre buffers to the tree belts, woodlands and hedgerows but where they are adjacent to areas of ancient woodland or important hedgerows they should be wider. Wider buffers within the development would function better as part of the green infrastructure for new residents whilst also becoming more effective ecological corridors for wildlife. If this approach was adopted and designed sensitively it could help relieve pressure on some of the sensitive habitats, such as ground flora within ancient woodlands, within the country park and mitigation areas. There should be net gains in biodiversity as set out in NPPF. How can the ‘off-site’ mitigation be delivered and secured with any certainty. Application should be refused if cannot secure and should be provided in advance of any proposed works commencing. The primary mitigation for bats, and other species, should be designed in conjunction with the lighting strategy. In particular woodland species such as Myotis or Barbastella are likely to be significantly impacted by the illumination of important foraging or commuting areas or where they are bisected by a road. Referring back to comments on ecological corridors within the development, if the margins are not of sufficient width it is unlikely that there will be any areas that are not illuminated and therefore they will not function as proposed for nocturnal species.
6.18. Cycle Basingstoke
Comments:
The designs for Manydown are unlikely to make cycling an attractive alternative to using the car. The principles of the ‘balanced approach’ as detailed is unlikely to change the present balance between motor and cycle modes existing in the Borough. Motor transport has been prioritised and cycle transport remains aspirational with no clear indication of how it will be facilitated. Stated principles of design do not seem to correlate with the highway layout proposed. Proposed changes to the junction of the A339 with Rooksdown Lane and the road to Wootton St Lawrence will close a much used and needed cycle route. With all the new homes this junction will be the most natural point to cross the A339 to gain access to the countryside. MSD14 and public fact sheet are vague – terms with reference to cycling and walking are misleading. A cycle lane is part of the carriageway not part of the footway. The appropriate infrastructure needs to be designed and built before the houses. Potential for fast and efficient cycle journeys within 10 mile radius is ignored with no connections planned along B3400 or out to Tadley. Increased motor traffic has a negative impact on cycle use and reduces the availability of suitable cycle routes. Support concern raised in HCC Highways letter 14 February 2019 and also concerned that mitigation proposals will be inadequate and too late.
6.19. 4 B Buckskin Resident’s Action Group
Concerned about prohibiting right turns into Old Kempshott Lane when traffic is eastbound on Worting Road. Worting Road is the main access and feeder road for Old Kempshott Lane, the Highfields Estate and all its Closes, Hampshire Close, School Close, Whitebeam Close, Kempshott Grove and Highlands Road. Approaching from the Lowlands Road direction could mean up to a two mile detour for some residents. To access Old Kempshott Lane by U turning via Buckskin Lane Roundabout will increase journeys by three or four minutes and nearly one mile resulting in greater air pollution along Worting Road through unnecessary journeys. In our view any change to the present junction set up will result in tailbacks through Worting Bridge as outlined in the submitted planning document. The current junction should remain in place. Some people use the route 4 to 5 times a day.
Relevant Planning History
16/00737/ENS Request for scoping opinion for proposed Issued 23.05.2016 residential development, schools, local centres, public open space, country park and supporting infrastructure
19/01908/ENSC Request for Screening Opinion for advanced Issued 27.08.2019 ecological and landscape planting along the western boundary of the Manydown application site
19/02649/FUL Advanced planting of approximately 4.5ha of Granted 13.12.2019 new habitat and the reinforcement of existing habitat with associated groundworks and agriculture field drainage, providing ecological and landscape mitigation for the Manydown outline planning application 17/00818/OUT
Local Authority duties under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equalities Act 2011 pervades across all functions of the Council including the determination of planning applications. The Council’s public-sector equality duty is an important consideration. It requires the Council inter alia to have due regard to the need to -
(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), inter alia Article 8 (right to respect for one’s private and family life, including their home), and Protocol 1, Article 1: (Protection of property).
7. Overview
7.1. Environmental Impact Assessment
7.1.1. The application has been submitted with an Environmental Statement and is therefore EIA development under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (2011). Since the submission of the planning application in March 2017, the EIA Regulations in England have been updated in April 2017. However because the planning application was submitted (and the scope of the EIA determined) under the 2011 Regulations, these remain applicable for this planning application. As set out in the planning history section above, a scoping opinion was issued previously under 16/00737/ENS.
7.1.2. EIA is used to assess the likely significant effects of a proposed development upon the environment. The ES is required to provide the LPA with sufficient information about the potential effects of the development prior to a decision being made on the planning application. The information provided as part of the ES has been taken into account in the determination of the application.
7.1.3. The Council issued a scoping response to a request received in 2016 (Ref: 16/02559/ENSC). An Environmental Statement was submitted in accordance with the Regulations.
7.1.4. As part of the submission of additional and amended information the applicant has provided Environmental Statement Addendums to sit alongside the original Environmental Statement. The Planning Statement Addendum (December 2019) confirms that, “the additional documents that form part of the ES do not give rise to changes to the assessment of significant effects, with the exception of Traffic and Transportation.” These are considered within the main body of the report.
7.1.5. The full ES, which comprises both the original ES and the addendums to the ES, was subject to formal consultation as part of consultation on the outline application and its amendments. The conclusions of the ES are noted and it is considered that the EIA process has been undertaken appropriately. Planning conditions and legal agreements can be used to secure suitable mitigation where significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of the development and these are considered within the report.
7.2. Structure of the Application
7.2.1. The application is made in outline with all matters reserved except for the main access points (A339, B3400 and Roman Road). This means that in considering the merits of the development as set out in the description of development, the main access points are also for consideration in detail at this stage. All other forms of development, such as the secondary accesses, internal development roads (including the link road), the built development, open spaces, schools, local centres, approved will eventually have to be subject to reserved matters applications to secure the final detail of those elements. The access plans for approval are:
Primary means of access Plan 1: Access to A339 and Roman Road - 5556/OPA/006/P Rev H Primary means of access Plan 2: Roman Road/Winklebury Way – 5556/OPA/007/P Rev A Primary means of access Plan 3: Worting Road Access Junction – 556/OPA/008/P Rev A
In addition to the extent of development set out in the description, as well as the accesses shown in detail, the application also proposes the approval of a set of parameter plans at this outline stage. The parameter plans for approval are:
Land Use Parameter Plan. Access and Movement Plan. Building Heights and Density Plan. Open Space and Landscape Plan.
7.2.2. The parameter plans proposed for approval serve a different purpose to the access plans which are shown in full detail for approval at this stage (and therefore subsequent reserved matters applications will not be required). The parameter plans are submitted so as to set certain points at this outline stage that will guide the eventual proposals submitted at reserved matters stage. This assists the council as Local Planning Authority in being able to assess that the quantum of development can be accommodated in an acceptable manner and assists the applicant in providing more certainty over the extent of development that would be acceptable across the application site within those parameters.
7.2.3. The parameter plans submitted each propose different things. The Land Use Parameter Plan seeks to agree the broad distribution of uses across the development site. The Access and Movement Plan recognises the location of the main access points but adds parameters around other key elements for access and movement including the broad location of the link road running through the site, the land to be safeguarded for a potential future railway crossing and important secondary accesses such as the Roman Road link and the secondary access to the south of the B3400. The Building Heights and Density Plan shows a range of heights and densities across the site setting an overall envelope for the built form development, being assessed as such with regards to the impacts, but it does not mean that the full extent of heights and densities will necessarily be utilised to the maximum envelope when it comes to eventual reserved matters approval. The Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan sets out the key strategic open spaces (multi-functional green space (MFGS)) such as the neighbourhood parks and the proposed linear park along the western edge of Roman Road. Being a parameter plan it does not (and could not) show every element of open space provision as these will be for the eventual reserved matters applications but it does include some detail to allow for assessment of the proposals, such as confirmation that each of the three neighbourhood parks would be a minimum of 2ha in area.
Masterplanning
7.2.4. This outline planning application seeks to establish the principle of development for up to 3520 dwellings on the site. Outline permission can be granted subject to conditions requiring the subsequent approval of one or more reserved matters. Reserved matters are those aspects which can be reserved for later approval. In this instance the application also seeks the detail relating to the access at this stage only for the three principal accesses (A339, B3400 and Roman Road), with all other matters, ie layout, scale, appearance and landscape, reserved for future approval. All secondary accesses shown would also be subject to future reserved matters applications. National Planning Policy Guidance which supports the NPPF states that outline applications need to provide information about the proposed use or uses, and the amount of development proposed for each use.
7.3. Post Outline Permission Approach
7.3.1. The post outline stages will need to be consistent with the parameter plans and access plans being submitted for approval as part of the outline planning application. They will expand upon the principles established in the Manydown Development Brief SPD and will be the basis for details forming Reserved Matters submissions.
7.3.2. The Development Brief is a requirement of Local Plan Policy SS3 (Greenfield Site Allocations), and Local Plan Appendix 5 (Masterplan and Development Brief Protocol). The purpose of the Development Brief is to:
Add greater clarity and detail to the planning policy framework and clarify the local planning authority’s requirements for the site Ensure development takes full account of the opportunities and constraints of the site and neighbouring area Provide guidance on how development can be brought forward in a coordinated manner on different parts of the site, including the comprehensive delivery of infrastructure Facilitate engagement with local residents and other stakeholders
7.3.3. Before development can commence on site all development (with the exception of the accesses approved in detail) under this outline application will need a reserved matters submission. These applications are submitted to the council, assessed, consulted upon and determined like any other planning application. However, the application is for the largest Local Plan allocation by far and due to the physical scale of the development and the likely longer term build out of the development the applicant has responded by proposing a structure in the application (with the additional information submitted in July 2018) to secure a link between points approved at outline application stage through to the eventual submission of reserved matters applications. This is described as the Site Wide Framework and Key Phase Framework submissions, details of which are set out below.
7.3.4. This approach serves a number of uses but in particular is beneficial as it is not possible to plan all detail of such an extensive site at this stage. By having this additional stage enables the thread of Local Plan, Development Brief, outline planning permission through to eventual reserved matters applications to be integrated into the approval process. In addition it also allows for matters as they arise throughout the build out period to be responded to, as opposed to seeking to fix all detail at the outline stage. In essence this would allow for a further refinement of details between the two application stages of outline and reserved matters, refining details shown on the parameter plans, but not overriding them as they are part of the current application seeking outline planning permission.
7.3.5. The Parameter Plans and description of the planning application only provide a high level framework to be established at this outline stage. It is important that any outline permission puts in place a mechanism which will ensure that the reserved matters applications which come forward are of a high quality. The application anticipates that this will be achieved through the submission of a set of interim masterplanning and design documents which are to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority pursuant to planning conditions/obligations. The inter- relationships of these documents is explained in more detail in Figure 3 ‘Securing Design Quality and Delivery Through Planning’ in the Planning Statement.
7.3.6. In the event of this outline planning application being approved there are two main planning conditions recommended to secure this process, with the remainder of 7.3.7. the planning conditions being drafted to reflect the approach.
Condition 5 – Site Wide Framework
7.3.8. These are the first part of the post-outline process. The Site Wide Frameworks are to set out strategies setting out a fix on broad development principles, objectives and targets. These will cover areas such as:
Vision and Detailed Development Specification The design intent of the proposals and establishment of the number and area of phase specific masterplans and area specific briefs to be agreed. The Development Specification will be a non-spatial document setting out more detailed elements of the scheme.
Urban Design Framework Strategic placemaking principles, specify important code/development brief requirements and specify further design approval process.
Phasing and Delivery Strategy Objectives and principles, likely interdependencies, triggers and the broad sequence of development and delivery of infrastructure, including temporary/early community infrastructure provision, particularly covering education and the County Park. The Phasing and Delivery Strategy will be reviewed and kept up to date so it can accurately reflect the proposed development as construction takes place.
Overall Management Plan The strategic approach to delivery, management and maintenance of community assets within the development.
Ecological Mitigation & Management Strategy Setting out the key site wide principles for matters such as the role of the Clerk of Works, overall strategy for connectivity of ecological corridors across the site (between what will be key phases) and an overall strategy for protection of key features during construction. These will be refined and detailed at Key Phase and then Reserved Matters stage.
Surface Water Management Strategy Requiring a detailed site wide surface water management strategy based on the principles of the submitted Flood Risk Assessment ref: MSD12gR and bringing into this early stage further detail in relation to the Buckskin and West Ham catchments.
Country Park Development Brief A Development Brief to cover matters such as design principles, phasing, habitat management and movement and access. It is considered appropriate to secure this at the Site Wide stage given the extent of the Country Park and its potential interaction with multiple Key Phases.
Travel Plan Framework Seeking to confirm those measures that will be applied to the site and each key phase, and updating on the strategy set out in the Travel Plan submitted with the Outline Application MSD12bR July 2018.
Heritage Management Plan Requiring objectives for the promotion of awareness, understanding and education related to the heritage assets in and surrounding the site together with the long term plans to manage and maintain the setting(s) of relevant heritage asset(s). This is considered appropriate at the Site Wide Stage given the interaction of the site with the setting of a number of heritage assets which are mostly surrounding the site.
Approval of these Site Wide Frameworks allows for individual “Key Phases” to then be approved. The wording of Condition 5 allows for a Key Phase(s) submission to come in alongside the Site Wide Framework but it cannot be approved ahead of the Site Wide Framework.
Condition 7 - Key Phases
7.3.9. A Key Phase will be defined as a spatial area of the site within which development will come forward. There will be a number of drivers as to what defines a key phase for the development. Condition 7 requires the submission of details of each key phase and for that to be approved ahead of a first reserved matters being approved for that Key Phase. Importantly this condition requires the Key Phase to be defined and a justification provided as to why it is considered appropriate to come forward with the quantum of development, mix of uses etc proposed. The details submitted at this stage will be taking account of development that has come forward so far within the application site through a process of monitoring which will have to be taken account of in the justification of defining the next Key Phase.
7.3.10. The condition will also be forward looking in setting out the extent of further information required for the Key Phase e.g. whether a design code or development brief is necessary taking account of the scale of development, mix of uses proposed and location within the site.
7.3.11. No upper or lower thresholds for how much development would be appropriate within a Key Phase is set within the conditions and it is considered unreasonable to take such an approach as the intention of this structured approach is for the applicant to be able to respond to matters as they arise over the lifetime of the development but while also maintaining the ability for the council as LPA to control such matters. The condition is considered necessary and reasonable reflecting the available information within the outline application and the scale of the development.
7.3.12. Alongside the definition of a Key Phase it will be necessary to submit a suite of other information as part of the Key Phase Framework (Condition 7) before the approval of reserved matters applications in that Key Phase. The Key Phase Framework will include documents such as a statement updating conditions beyond the TA submitted with this application or new Transport Assessment, Travel Plan, Delivery Plan and Design Code or Development Brief (as required by the Site Wide Framework referenced above).
7.3.13. The submission of an updated Transport Assessment at the relevant Key Phase(s) allows for any changes in circumstances since the TA at outline stage. This may include, for example, taking account of the effects of the final design and implementation of roads within other parts of the site, the opening of key access points throughout the development or changing patterns of movement on the wider highway network either through changes on that network with regards to key highway interventions or changes such as public transport provision. On this subject in particular this provides a means for keeping any outline planning permission granted as “live” to be able to respond to any substantial changes that might take place over the significant lifetime of this particular development as opposed to having a position where reserved matters applications towards the end of the development are submitted many years after the original outline application and TA have been assessed.
7.3.14. The Delivery Plan element of the Key Phase Framework will allow for an assessment and monitoring of the individual key phases across the site ensuring appropriate supporting facilities, infrastructure and affordable housing are coming online at appropriate timings, responding also to any triggers contained within the recommended s106 Agreement.
7.3.15. The Design Code or Development Brief (as required) will provide a more detailed analysis of the design requirements for the particular key phase taking account of the actual quantum of development, location and uses defined within the key phase.
Exceptions
7.3.16. All development will be required to have passed through the above mentioned stages before reserved matters applications are approved apart from three specific categories. Each requires written agreement from the LPA and in doing so requires the applicant to justify the exception and explain how the wider requirements set out in other conditions are either not relevant to the exception and/or how those issues would be addressed by the reserved matters application:
Enabling Works - (Condition 4) Early delivery of the site is a key element of ensuring that the site contributes to the council’s housing supply requirements. This condition would allow for development necessary to implement the wider permission such as temporary access and haul roads for construction, the laying and diverting of key services and the implementation of ecological mitigation. Given that this relates to enabling development rather than the proposed development itself the exception can be requested ahead of the Site Wide Framework and Key Phase Framework approvals.
Advanced Temporary or Early Community Infrastructure - (Condition 6) Condition 6 sets out that, by agreement with the LPA, an application can be made for reserved matters approval of this form of development without going through the aforementioned Key Phase stages. Such provision could include, for example, a temporary community facility or the first community facility building should the development come forward with a requirement for early community provision while the development progresses. The potential for a temporary community facility in advance of permanent community facilities is allowed for within the proposed s106 Agreement.
Exception Outside of a Key Phase – (Condition 8) In light of the extent of the development and build out period it is considered reasonable to build in some flexibility to enable a response to any exceptional position that may arise. In seeking to utilise this approach the applicant would need to justify the exception in terms of either speeding up delivery or explain how a bettered outcome between Key Phases would be achieved. To ensure that this approach cannot be utilised too frequently, thereby undermining the Key Phase Framework approach, a limit of no more than 200 dwellings across the entire site is included within the condition that could be submitted in reserved matters through this exception.
7.4. Housing Land Supply
7.5. The Housing Delivery Test was published on 13 February 2020. This confirmed that Basingstoke and Deane met the rolling three year housing target with completions of 2,589 units compared to a requirement of 2,453 - 105%. As a consequence the borough returns to a 5% buffer rather than the 20% buffer required by the 2018 test results. Whilst this is an improved position, the land supply continues to fall short of the 5 year requirement and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development continues to apply.
7.6. As the council is unable to demonstrate that it has 5 years’ worth of deliverable sites this means that policies relating to housing delivery in the borough’s adopted Local Plan and made Neighbourhood Plans are currently considered to be out of date. Whilst out of date, they are still considered relevant to the determination of the application, albeit with limited weight.
7.7. Planning applications will therefore be considered in line with paragraph 11 of the NPPF which states that where relevant policies are considered out of date, permission will be granted, unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.
7.8. It is considered that the overall impact on the principle of the proposed development in respect of this particular application is not fundamental. More specifically, as the site is allocated in the Local Plan (Policy SS3.10) and is located within the Settlement Policy Boundary, the principle of its development is supported by development plan policy. The ‘tilted balance’ as per paragraph 11 of the NPPF, reinforces the acceptability of the principle of the proposed development.
7.9. However, there are some more specific implications of the lack of a deliverable 5- year housing supply, which will have a bearing on how this application is considered. In particular, the lack of 5-year supply means that the most important development plan policies for determining the application are out of date, in that they would not provide for a sufficient supply. Of primary importance for the determination of this application is that this will mean that the site allocation policy should be considered ‘out of date’.
7.10. Nevertheless, the allocation policy is clearly the most relevant basis on which to form an assessment of the merits of the application and the following report assesses the application in this regard within the requirements of paragraph 11 of the NPPF.
7.11. Sustainable Development
7.11.1. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policy for England and places an emphasis upon delivering sustainable development incorporating objectives for economic, social and environmental protection. These principles seek to balance growth and local needs of the community against protection of the natural, built and historic environment. This intends for development to be provided in accessible locations and in proximity to the community which it serves.
7.11.2. The NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development running through both plan-making and decision-taking. The three dimensions to achieving sustainable development are defined in the NPPF as: economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 11 of the Framework indicates that, for decision taking, where Local Plan policies are up to date: development proposals that accord with the Development Plan should be approved without delay.
7.11.3. Both the adopted Local Plan and the NPPF require a positive approach to decision-taking to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The three dimensions of sustainable development as defined in the NPPF and referred to above, are also referenced within the adopted Local Plan at Policy SD1 which repeats the aims of the NPPF in approving development proposals that accord with the Development Plan.
7.11.4. In having regard to the three objectives of sustainable development, it is acknowledged that there are benefits from the application through the development of an allocated site on the edge of Basingstoke. The scheme includes the provision of a significant level of new housing (including 40% affordable housing), additional public transport and community facilities with two local centres proposed including non-residential development, development of two primary schools; land for one secondary school; open spaces including a Country Park, Neighbourhood Parks, natural green spaces, allotments, outdoor sports facilities, play provision, informal open space and landscaping and indoor sports facilities, provision of 5 permanent gypsy and traveller pitches and infrastructure works to provide drainage, utilities and associated services.
7.11.5. The development is considered to meet the aim of focusing new development on the edge of the Borough’s main settlement and is a strategic allocation for development. It is considered that an appropriate design quality, density and height for development can be secured to provide an efficient use of land and through landscape works and biodiversity mitigation and enhancement can perform an environmental role.
7.11.6. There would be economic benefits generated through the construction period from wage spending of construction workers and supplier sourcing and following this, consumer spending on goods and services by the occupants of the dwellings and within the local economy.
7.11.7. It is development that would contribute to the economy of the Borough through construction jobs, jobs in the commercial and non-residential elements of the site and additional spending. Additional households in an area can also make a social contribution through supporting and sustaining existing community services, creating a vibrant community and providing housing in an area to support present and future needs. The development would accord with current requirements for energy efficiency and waste management thus improving the environmental credentials of the site. The development therefore accords with the guidance set out within the NPPF for sustainable development.
7.12. Principle of development
Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must have regard to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the development plan for the area is the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, the Oakley and Deane Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2029 and the Wootton St Lawrence Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2029. At a national level, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) constitutes guidance which the Local Planning Authority (LPA) must have regard to. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making, but is a material consideration in any subsequent determination.
7.13. Development Plan
7.13.1. The Development Plan comprises the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029, the Oakley and Deane Neighbourhood Plan and the Wootton St Lawrence Neighbourhood Plan. The site lies within the Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) for Basingstoke as an allocated site under Policy SS3.10. Policy SS1 requires that during the plan period 2011-2029, the Local Plan will make provision to meet 15,300 dwellings and associated infrastructure. This includes allocating greenfield sites (as those set out in Policy SS3) to provide approximately 7705 dwellings over the plan period. The Local Plan has allocated the site at Manydown for approximately 3,400 new homes in this plan period through Policy SS3.10.
7.13.2. The site falls within three parishes; Rooksdown, Wootton St Lawrence and Oakley and Deane. The Local Plan allocation also includes a smaller area of land in and around Worting along with Scrapps Hill Farm, controlled by a number of other landowners. To the south of the railway line is land known as Parcel 6A which is also within the applicant’s control, is within the allocation but is not part of this application.
7.13.3. Evidence that informed the Local Plan indicated that the BDBC/HCC owned part of the allocation could deliver approximately 3200 dwellings with further development on the remaining parcels within the allocation. A vision for the development of Manydown is set out in the supporting text to policy SS3.10 (Manydown) in the Local Plan.
7.13.4. “Manydown will deliver a high quality, sustainable new development of approximately 3400 new homes in this plan period. The proposals will be designed sensitively to respond to the site’s opportunities and constraints, in particular its landscape and biodiversity context, heritage assets, and relationship with existing communities. The details will be worked up through extensive engagement with the local community and deliver a range of amenities to new and existing residents alike.”
7.13.5. As Policy SS3.10 is the main allocation policy the substantive part of the report below seeks to assess the application against each of the criteria of this policy with cross reference to other policies relevant to the criterion subject. Where relevant each criterion set out refers to a corresponding Manydown Objective as articulated in the Manydown Development Brief SPD. The Manydown Objectives include:
A mix of homes to create a sustainable new community To deliver approximately 3400 new homes with a mix of different dwelling tenures, types, and sizes, including affordable housing, to meet a broad range of needs, and deliver a mixed and sustainable community.
An effective and efficient transport system To deliver a sustainable development by making provision for excellent public transport services and safe, well designed and convenient walking and cycling routes with appropriate provision for car based transport.
Social and community infrastructure to create sustainable neighbourhoods To support the development of a healthy, thriving new community through the timely provision of the necessary social and community infrastructure, with local centres and schools at the heart of walkable neighbourhoods
Environmental Quality To deliver development that takes advantage of, and responds sensitively to, the site and its surroundings’ environmental characteristics, including its green infrastructure and heritage assets, and uses these to create a high quality, healthy place with a strong sense of identity.
Design Quality To create a high quality urban environment with clear character areas informed by the built and natural environment.
An integrated masterplan and comprehensive infrastructure delivery To ensure that homes and infrastructure are comprehensively planned across the whole allocation, and that infrastructure is delivered at an appropriate time and in a coordinated manner.
Neighbourhood Plans
7.13.6. There are two Neighbourhood Plans that are relevant to this application; Oakley and Deane Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2029, and Wootton St Lawrence Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2029. The Oakley and Deane Neighbourhood Plan was ‘made’ in 2016 and The Wootton St Lawrence Neighbourhood Plan ‘made’ at Full Council on 19th December 2019. Both of these now form part of the Development Plan.
7.13.7. The following confirmation has been provided within the Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment for the Wootton St Lawrence Neighbourhood Plan. “The Plan does not seek to influence development within the Manydown site allocation with the exception of a number of specific policies that relate to the detail of the development by seeking to minimise light pollution and influencing the locations of footpath and bridleway connections.”
7.13.8. Although the majority of the Plan does not relate to development at Manydown, it includes a number of policies that specifically do. These relate to:
Policy WSL1: Local Gap (which overlaps some of the land identified as country park); Policy WSL3: Public Rights of Way, which requires the Manydown Country Park to be integrated with the PRoW network; Policy WSL4: Light Pollution, which seeks to minimise impacts from light pollution on neighbouring uses or the wider landscape.
As relevant these policies are referred to in the assessment section of the report.
Oakley and Deane Neighbourhood Plan
7.13.9. A small part of the application site (the westernmost part of the parcel to the south of the B3400) is within the area covered by the Oakley and Deane Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2029. The Plan was adopted before the Local Plan. The approach taken in the Neighbourhood Plan is to have largely excluded Manydown from the development sites allocated within the Plan. In particular paragraph 1.4.2 of the Plan states:
“The Neighbourhood Plan takes into account the proposed Site Allocation of the Manydown Area in the emerging Local Plan (a small part of which lies within the Neighbourhood Area), the remaining Manydown Area within which master planning will take place, and the Basingstoke-Oakley Strategic Gap (large parts of both of which lie within the Neighbourhood Area). It is anticipated that Manydown, as a strategic allocation, will come forward through the emerging Local Plan. The Neighbourhood Plan does not, itself, allocate land at Manydown for development, but it has been prepared in the expectation of development at Manydown coming forward during the plan period. Map 1 shows the expected extent of the Manydown strategic site and related masterplanning area. The residential allocations in the Neighbourhood Plan do not include new dwellings that may come forward at Manydown.”
7.13.10. Policy 1 (New Housing Development) goes on to confirm:
“The Neighbourhood Plan allocates land for approximately 150 dwellings in the Neighbourhood Area during the period between 2011 and 2029. The allocated sites are shown in policy 4 below and identified on the accompanying plans. The allocation of approximately 150 dwellings does not include new dwellings that may come forward as part of the Manydown strategic allocation. For clarity, the housing policies of the Neighbourhood Plan do not apply to the Manydown strategic allocation and dwellings that come forward as part of the Manydown strategic allocation will be additional to those allocated in this Neighbourhood Plan.”
7.13.11. In relation to separation between settlements the Plan acknowledged the (then) emerging Local Plan intention for a Strategic Gap between Oakley and Basingstoke. This has now forms the Strategic Gap under Policy EM2 of the Local Plan.
7.14. Supplementary Planning Documents
As stated in earlier comments, a site-specific Manydown Development Brief SPD has been adopted and is a material consideration. It is also relevant that the council adopted a new Planning Obligations SPD in June 2018 (that accompanied the implementation of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)), and three Supplementary Planning Documents in July 2018 relating to Design and Sustainability; Housing; and Parking that are all material to the application. The council has also adopted the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees SPD in December 2018 and a Heritage SPD in March 2019.
8. Assessment
Policy SS3.10 criterion (a) – provide a phased delivery of approximately 3,400 dwellings;
Objective 1 of the Manydown SPD – to deliver approximately 3400 new homes with a mix of different tenures, types, and sizes, including affordable housing, to meet a broad range of needs, and deliver a mixed and sustainable community.
8.1. Amount of Development
8.1.1. The application proposes 3200 dwellings up to a maximum of 3520 dwellings. The application therefore has to be considered against the highest number proposed within the description of the application. The higher figure of 3520 dwellings would be more than the 3400 dwellings referenced in criterion (a) but within the scope of the term “approximately” given the overall scale of development. However, it is important to note that additional parcels of land at Worting, Scrapps Hill Farm and Parcel 6A are not part of this application but remain within the allocation. Therefore in the event that these areas of land also come forward for residential development then it is likely that the 3400 dwellings referenced in criterion (a) would be significantly exceeded. For consideration at this stage under this application is whether the description of development proposed (along with the detail of the three principal access points) can be accommodated in an acceptable manner. As set out in the remainder of this report it is considered that this can be achieved when the proposal is assessed against all other planning policies and material considerations.
8.1.2. The Environmental Statement (ES) assesses the impact of delivering up to 3520 dwellings, as a sensitivity test. The ES includes an assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposed development with other developments that are either approved, current applications awaiting decisions, or which have an allocation within the Local Plan.
8.1.3. The Council’s Urban Design Officer has confirmed that such a capacity, together with the other proposed uses, could be successfully achieved on the site in urban design terms. The Parameter Plans and Design and Access Statement (DAS) describe how a capacity of 3520 dwellings and other uses could be distributed around the site. In particular, the Building Heights and Density Parameter Plan provides guidance on what ranges of densities would be appropriate for each part of the site. The qualitative aspects of this Parameter Plan are considered in more detail later in this report.
8.1.4. It is noted that the coloured blocks of housing density ranges in the Building Heights and Density Parameter Plan extend over a number of areas which are expected to not be occupied by housing. An example are the areas which are proposed for schools in the Land Use Parameter Plan; another example is the likelihood that there will be some freestanding non-housing uses including retail units, community buildings and an indoor sports facility on land which is assigned as housing density in the Parameter Plan. The Urban Design Officer advises that even when the potential for housing in these areas is discounted, it is still estimated that the net housing density of the residential areas will be in the region of 33 dwellings per hectare assuming a total capacity of 3520 units. Such an average net density, when viewed in the context of the Parameter Plans and the information in the DAS, gives confidence that a capacity of 3520 dwellings together with the non-housing uses can be successfully accommodated within the site.
8.2. Mix of dwelling types and sizes
8.2.1. Policy CN3 (Housing Mix for Market Housing) states that the mix of market homes should have regard to: local requirements; the size, location and characteristics of the site; and the established character and density of the neighbourhood. Manydown Development Brief SPD Development Principle 1a (A mix of market homes that responds to current and future needs) seeks a mix of unit sizes (noting in particular, the growth in smaller households) as well as seeking accommodation for older people.
8.2.2. During the course of the application the council has adopted the Housing SPD (July 2018) which provides guidance on market housing mix (Chapter 3). This states that applications should clearly set out the proposed mix of market homes with an explanation and a justification (para 3.7).
It includes the following detailed housing mix principle:
Principle 3.1 Market housing type and size mix
In order to deliver balanced and sustainable communities, the council will seek a range of dwelling types and sizes that meet the requirements of Local Plan Policy CN3 and made Neighbourhood Plan policies, having regard to the location and accessibility of the development, and the character and context of the site and surrounding area.
The evidence highlights a borough-wide need for small family homes and homes suitable for older people wishing to downsize. Development should therefore principally focus upon a mix of two and three bedroom dwellings (particularly houses), with only a limited requirement for homes with four bedrooms or more, which should normally comprise no more than 30% of the market homes in the development.
The mix and type of housing shall be justified as part of any submission.
8.2.3. This requirement is also set out in development principle 1a of the Manydown Development Brief SPD which advises that the mix and type of market homes should be informed by up-to-date evidence of current and future borough-wide and local needs. It should also include a mix of unit sizes and accommodation for older people.
8.2.4. No details of the proposed market housing mix have been provided. However Condition 27 requires all reserved matters, irrespective of the Key Phase they sit within, to comply with the Housing Mix Policy CN3 or any further iteration of that Policy. In line with Local Plan Policy CN3, Condition 27 secures the provision of 15% of market homes to be accessible and adaptable to meet the requirements of M4(2) of Building Regulations, which can help older people maintain their independence and stay in their homes longer. The same requirement in relation to affordable housing is proposed to be secured in the s106 agreement.
8.3. Older persons’ accommodation/Extra care housing
8.3.1. The applicant’s submission highlights the need to provide accommodation to meet the needs of the older population, including exploring opportunities for a residential care home and/or extra care housing. ‘Extra-Care Housing is defined as ‘purpose-built accommodation in which varying amounts of care and support can be offered on-site and where some services are shared.’ Hampshire County Council (HCC) has identified a need for at least 80 extra care housing flats for older persons as part of the proposed housing mix and this should be a range of affordable and market tenure units.
8.3.2. The application allows for both Use Class C2 and Use Class C3 within the description of development. Therefore the grant of this outline application will allow for older persons housing falling within either Use Class. Under Condition 7(c) the “Key Phase Schedule of Uses and Quantum of Development” will require specification of the type and quantum of various residential based uses within the Key Phase proposals which will confirm whether older persons housing is part of the Key Phase and the quantum of such development. As such it is considered that the application accords with Policy CN4 of the Local Plan.
8.3.3. The affordable housing provision does not include C2 use classes (residential institutions). The reason for this is that Policy CN1 of the Local Plan is applicable to C3 use class (dwellinghouses). This is expanded on within the subtext of the Policy which states:
“Policy CN1 (Affordable housing) will not be applied to residential institutions and other types of accommodation for older people and people with support needs that do not fall within the definition of a dwelling (Use Class C3).”
8.3.4. The drafting of the s106 will however allow for the potential for extra care housing to count towards the overall affordable housing provision, but only where the level of care provided is such that those units still fall within Use Class C3.
8.4. Affordable housing
Policy Context
8.4.1. Local Plan Policy CN1 requires 40% affordable housing for relevant residential development with a tenure split of 70% rented and 30% intermediate products. The policy and subtext highlights the importance of development proposals creating mixed and balanced communities. Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant Policy developments including the adoption of the Manydown Development Brief SPD and the Housing SPD. In addition changes to the NPPF were published shortly after the applicant’s July 2018 resubmission on the planning application.
8.4.2. None of these policy developments have fundamentally changed the emphasis of Policy CN1 with the overall requirement for 40% affordable housing and a 70/30 tenure split remaining. The changes to national policy in the NPPF are such that Local Plan Policy CN1 remains NPPF compliant.
8.4.3. Specifically the NPPF (para 64) now requires that 10% of all developments should be for affordable home ownership products as part of the overall affordable housing provision for the site. This is already covered by the existing Policy CN1 requirements in that the 30% of the 70/30 split equates to 12% overall of any development. This had already been accounted for within the (then) emerging Housing SPD prior to the adoption of the NPPF in that footnote 10 of the document states:
“The Housing White Paper indicates a possible requirement for 10% of all new homes to be affordable home ownership products. Of the 40% affordable housing, Policy CN1 requires 30% to be intermediate products – equivalent to 12% of the overall number of dwellings.”
8.4.4. The commitment of the application to provide overall across the development 40% with a 70/30 tenure split within this application therefore accords with Policy CN1.
8.4.5. The NPPF has also changed the definition of affordable housing in Annex 2 of the document, with the definitions being set out in criteria (a)-(d). Rented (section (a)) still includes affordable rent and social rent products. Other products (section (b), (c) and (d)) include starter homes (b), discounted market sales housing (c) and other affordable routes to home ownership (d) which includes shared ownership. It is noted that the glossary to the Local Plan includes a definition of intermediate affordable housing as including:
“Housing at prices and rents above those of social rent, but below market price or rents. These can include shared equity products (e.g. HomeBuy), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent but does not include affordable rented housing.”
8.4.6. Within the Housing SPD Principle 2.1 sets out the approach to “balanced flexibility” towards affordable housing provision. Specifically Principle 2.1 states:
“The council will require 40% affordable housing on all market housing with a tenure split of 70% rented and 30% intermediate products as required by Local Plan Policy CN1. This will be the starting point for discussions. A balanced approach will be taken to affordable housing negotiations, making it possible to be flexible and accept innovation within policy, whilst ensuring that any variations have been justified; meet priority and strategically recognised housing needs and have been subject to relevant financial scrutiny.”
8.4.7. It is considered important to have regard to this principle when considering the scale of development proposed within the application on the largest strategic site within the Local Plan allocations and in particular the indicated development period up to 2031. There are two important factors in the proposed affordable housing provision which are considered to meet the intentions of Principle 2.1 of the SPD in providing balanced flexibility “within policy” as set out in more detail below.
Assessment
8.4.8. Taking account of the various developments in planning policy during the lifetime of the application, the Applicant has been further developing the affordable housing offer as confirmed in the July 2018 Planning Statement and has confirmed the following affordable housing provisions, which would be secured within a s106 Agreement:
Provision of 40% affordable housing within each key phase; Provision of affordable housing as a 70% affordable rent and 30% affordable home ownership tenure split in accordance with the Local Plan and the detailed definitions of tenure as set out in the updated version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); Provision of the details of the affordable housing scheme with each key phase submission (as defined in the stages set out on page 4 of the Design and Access Statement MSD1R). This affordable housing scheme will include details of the affordable tenures, unit mix proposals in response to local needs, and the location and delivery arrangements for the affordable housing within that phase; and Monitor the approval and delivery of affordable housing units across the site in accordance with monitoring provisions that will be secured by the S106 legal agreement.
8.4.9. The first element of balanced flexibility relates to the tenure mix of the affordable housing provision. As set out above the proposed section 106 agreement will ensure that of the 40% there will be a 70/30 split of rented to affordable home ownership products. Clearly the different products now allowed for under the NPPF definitions of affordable housing is expanded so that the 30% could include any of the affordable home ownership products listed above ((b), (c), (d)). The s106 is drafted so as to secure the 30% as shared ownership as the “default affordable housing tenure mix”. Only through submission of an “alternative affordable housing tenure mix” can this approach be varied to another definition of home ownership based products, which are limited to those set out within (b), (c) and (d) of the affordable housing definition in the NPPF. The process by which this alternative could be proposed is also set out within the appendices of the s106 agreement and requires the LPA to consider the proposal against the council’s own evidence base on housing need.
8.4.10. However, to ensure that the overall intention of Policy CN1, of creating mixed and balanced communities, is still met it is considered appropriate for the s106 agreement to require an assessment of need as the development progresses to ascertain the “best” option for what the 30% will comprise of at that time. Clearly this is not something that can be predicted at this stage of the development proposals as it will be impacted by multiple factors at the relevant time. However, the general approach is considered to be anchored to the parameters of Policy CN1 while also meeting the principles of “balanced flexibility” allowed for in principle 2.1 of the Housing SPD.
8.4.11. The second element of balanced flexibility within the development is the approach to 40% affordable housing (70/30 tenure split) being provided for within each key phase. As set out above each key phase is to be determined through details to be submitted pursuant to recommended condition 7. Within that key phase reserved matters for individual parcels will then follow. It may be the case that depending on the scale, location, type of development proposed etc within any given reserved matters parcel that a lesser or greater provision than 40% affordable housing will be proposed, provided always that the overall amount is provided in the totality of the key phase.
8.4.12. A monitoring approach or “tracker” will be a requirement within the details submitted where there is a variation to 40% provision within any reserved matters parcel to ensure, for example, there is not an overprovision delayed to later phases (and conversely a significant under provision in earlier phases) that would result in the creation of balanced and mixed communities not being achieved by the development. This will be a matter for consideration through the Key Phase Framework submission (Condition 7) and specifically the Key Phase Delivery Plan (criterion (h)). The approach to allowing some flex across the overall Key Phase is considered to be consistent with the approach set out in Development Principle 1b of the Manydown Development Brief SPD which states:
“The affordable dwellings should be distributed proportionately between each phase unless an alternative overarching Affordable Housing Strategy has been provided.”
8.4.13. In essence the Key Phase Affordable Housing Scheme to be submitted (secured through the s106 Agreement) would provide that overarching approach to provision within substantive parts of the site with the Affordable Housing Parcel Schemes providing the detail of how each smaller parcel within that Key Phase will contribute to the overall requirement.
8.4.14. It is considered that this type of flexibility ensures that there are specific, identifiable and enforceable points throughout the development whereby the 40% affordable housing provision can be secured, while also ensuring some flexibility taking account of the specific nature of the scheme, its scale and build out period. As such it is considered that there is appropriate control over the affordable housing provision with a context of allowing some variation, meeting the intentions of balanced flexibility within policy as described in Principle 2.1 of the Housing SPD.
8.4.15. The s106 requires affordable housing schemes to be submitted at key points throughout the delivery of the development. Under the umbrella requirements of the s106 of 40% provision with a 70/30 tenure split for each key phase secured at this outline stage these affordable housing schemes will include the specific details of each provision including final tenure mix, location and distribution of units and delivery mechanisms. In doing so the requirements of more specific planning policy can be met such as the Development principle 1b of the Manydown Development Brief which states:
“The mix and type of affordable housing should reflect the housing needs of those with a local connection to the borough and who would otherwise be unable to rent or buy suitable accommodation to meet their needs on the open market.
The affordable homes should be designed to be indistinguishable from market homes (‘tenure blind’), with units dispersed across the site in small clusters.”
8.5. Summary of Affordable Housing
The proposed development is therefore considered to accord with Policy CN1 of the Local Plan, the affordable housing requirements set out within the Manydown Development Brief SPD and Housing SPD and is consistent with recent national policy with regards to the updated NPPF and affordable housing definitions.
SS3.10 (b) In addition to the mix of dwelling sizes and types, make provision for a proportion of self-build units and also, in conjunction with other sites, a permanent, pitch/plot provision to meet identified accommodation needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople in the borough, such needs being identified in the council’s Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (and any updates);
8.6. Self Build and Custom Build
8.6.1. Reference is made in documentation supporting the application of the Local Plan Policy requirement for self-build and custom build plots within the site. Self-build and custom housebuilding offers the opportunity for residents to be involved in the design and construction of their own homes.
8.6.2. Policy CN3 (Housing Mix for Market Housing) includes the requirement for development to provide a range of house type and size to address local requirements and the footnote explains that this includes the provision ‘for those wishing to build their own home’. Local Plan Policy SS3.10 (b) requires development to make provision for ‘a proportion of self-build units’. Manydown Development Brief SPD, Principle 1c adds further detail to the policy and sets out that ‘5% of the units on Manydown should be made available as self-build and custom-build plots’.
8.6.3. Further guidance on requirements for self-build homes (and how they should be secured) is set out in the Housing SPD. In particular, this includes requirements relating to:
The timing of delivery of the plots (Principle 5.3). Marketing of the plots (Principle 5.4). Design Coding (Principle 5.6). Providing a mix of sizes and types (Principle 5.7).
8.6.4. In line with its statutory duty, the council introduced a Self-Build Register on 1 April 2016. The Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act which was introduced on 5 February 2016, places a duty on the Council to grant sufficient development permissions to meet demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in their area on a rolling three year basis. The register is therefore a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. There are currently 259 households (as of October 2019) on the Council’s Self Build Register, the majority of whom have identified they would like a plot for a 3-4 bedroom home in or around Basingstoke.
8.6.5. The table below shows those registered on the council’s self-build register.
Date of joining Base Base Base Base Total register Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 (23 March (31 (31 (31 – 30 October October October October 2016 – 30 2017 – 30 2018 – 30 2016) October October October 2017) 2018) 2019) No of individuals 121 76 24 28 249 added to Part 1 of Register No of associations 0 0 0 0 0 on Part 1 of Register No of individuals 0 2 2 6 10 on Part 2 of Register No of associations 0 0 0 0 0 on Part 2 of Register Total 121 78 26 34 259
8.6.6. Part 1 comprises individuals who joined the Register prior to May 2017, and individuals or associations living within the borough or with a connection to it; and Part 2 for all other individuals or associations.
8.6.7. In terms of Demand v Supply Balance, under the Right to Build, the council had a duty to grant permission to 121 self/custom build plots by 30 October 2019 (the number of individuals joining the Self-Build Register in base period 1, from April 2016-October 2016). The council has met this requirement including through plots on The Spinney (also known as Trumpet Junction) and at Hounsome Fields.
8.6.8. Further individuals continue to join the council’s Self-Build Register, and the projections of supply and demand in the Housing SPD identify that the plots on this site will make an important contribution to meeting need.
8.6.9. The applicant has confirmed that they will secure up to 5% provision. The proposed provision of this element of the housing requirement can be secured by legal agreement. The detail of the delivery would then be resolved through the Key Phase “Schedule of Uses and Quantum of Development” submission which would allow account to be taken of the type of variations in demand displayed in the table above across the longer term build out of this development, such that this element of Policy SS3.10 (b) would be met.
8.7. Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation
8.7.1. The application includes confirmation of the provision of 5 permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches. The Land Use Parameter Plan fixes the zone (shown as grey on the plan) for residential development and ancillary uses, residential access roads and streets, and also includes Gypsy and Traveller provision. The exact location for the Gypsy and Traveller Pitches would come forward as part of a Reserved Matters application and the provision of 5 permanent pitches is to be secured as a planning obligation within the s106 Agreement.
8.7.2. In April 2017 the council published a new Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (GTAA), updating the previous Gypsy and Traveller Needs Assessment (GTNA) 2015. National level planning guidance, Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) includes the new definition of gypsies and travellers which does not include those who have permanently ceased to travel. The need requirement is split into 3 categories:
Travellers who meet the new definition Unknowns – these are individuals who may meet the PPTS definition, but whose status and needs have not been clearly established Travellers not meeting the new definition
These categories produced the following need requirements:
Travellers who meet the new definition – 7 pitches required up to 2029 (5 in the first 5 years i.e. up to 2022) Unknowns – Potential for up to 7 pitches up to 2029, this needs to be proven by applicants on a case by case basis.
8.7.3. The total need identified by the GTAA and on the basis of evidence from the consultants who produced the GTAA is 9 pitches.
8.7.4. The Local Plan seeks to meet the identified need through the provision of plots on the Borough’s four largest residential sites at Hounsome Fields, Basingstoke Golf Course, Manydown and the East of Basingstoke (as set out in Policy CN5, and through the site-specific policies, in this case, SS3.10).
8.7.5. Criterion (b) of Policy SS3.10 requires accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers to be provided ‘to meet identified accommodation needs’, and further detail is provided by Local Plan Policy CN5 (Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople). Development Principle 1d: Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation in the Manydown Development Brief SPD identifies that the pitches should meet the evidenced level of need, and cross references to the detailed site requirements in Local Plan Policy CN5. The provision of pitches is therefore in line with the policy requirement.
8.7.6. Although it is recognised that the provision of plots through the planning system has slightly reduced the current level of need for new pitches, there is ongoing pressure for pitch provision, as shown through the continuing applications for planning applications on unallocated sites.
8.7.7. The Dixon Road appeal decision (17/02123/FUL) allowed the use of land for the stationing of no more than 2 caravans for residential purposes, together with the formation of hardstanding and utility/dayroom ancillary to that use. The Inspector concluded that substantial weight was given to the development as it represented, “a valuable contribution towards meeting a clear and immediate need for additional permanent privately-owned pitches in the district, in combination with the lack of suitable, acceptable, affordable, and available sites, outweighs the moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area that I have identified.”
8.7.8. There is also a particular requirement for pitches in the short-term for the LPA to meet the requirement in Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) to demonstrate a 5 year supply of specific deliverable sites. The s106 agreement for the site is being progressed on the basis of ensuring that 5 serviced pitches are provided at an early phase of development with the goal for them to be provided for within 5 years of outline planning permission being secured.
8.7.9. As set out above the application does not include any locational fix for this provision (other than it being within the grey land for residential on the Land Use Parameter Plan). The applicant has however also proposed that provision could be made off-site on other land within their control. This is considered reasonable in principle provided that the applicant was able to demonstrate a separate planning permission for an alternative site and a delivery plan for providing the site within the aforementioned 5 year period of securing outline planning permission. The s106 agreement is therefore being drafted to account for this alternative.
8.7.10. A number of representations have been received raising objections about the inclusion of permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches within the Manydown site. Concern has also been raised by Local Ward Councillors about the lack of information provided on the location of the pitches within the site at this outline stage. Although the parameters of the residential development is fixed at this stage, a Key Phase submission which follows the grant of any outline permission would indicate what types of residential accommodation was to come forward as part of each Key Phase, with the exact location of residential units (which may include Gypsy and Traveller pitches) considered at Reserved Matters stage.
8.7.11. Taking the above into account it is considered that the mix of accommodation at this outline stage is appropriate with sufficient controls in the recommended conditions and s106 Agreement to secure compliance with criterion (b) of Policy SS3.10 and the Manydown Development Brief SPD.
SS3.10 (c) Include the provision of social and physical infrastructure, including community facilities, local shopping facilities, healthcare facilities and sports and leisure facilities including playing pitches with an Infrastructure Delivery Strategy to demonstrate that the infrastructure requirements of the Manydown allocation have been comprehensively planned and will be met;
8.8. Amount of development
8.8.1. Approval is sought for maximum development land use zones within the site. The ES confirms that the maximum areas as shown on the Land Use Parameter Plan are as follows:
Land Use Zone Land Use (ha) Local centres (mixed use areas including 8.9 retail and community infrastructure but excluding residential uses) Residential development 102.4 Primary schools 5.8 Land for the secondary school 12.5 Open Space (including multi-functional 55.3 green space, equipped play and the pipeline corridor) Outdoor sports provision (including playing 8.5 fields) Allotments 2.8 Country Park 101 Reserved land for the potential future 3.2 railway crossing Other areas (e.g. roads) 21.5
8.8.2. The Land Use Parameter Plan shows the approximate location and extent of the two local centres; one located in the east to the south of the Country Park and one in the west of the site. The Neighbourhood Centres would include local shopping, employment as well as social and community facilities. The ES confirms that it is likely that the eastern centre would be delivered first and to be accessible from Winklebury with a direct route to the Country Park and could provide shops, cafes and a food store. The Design and Access Statement supporting the application confirms that whilst the approximate location and extent of the Neighbourhood Centres has been identified, the precise details would be confirmed as part a Development Brief and subsequent reserved matters applications.
8.9. Community Facilities
8.9.1. Prior to submitting the application and in order to understand the opportunities to connect well with existing communities the applicant held a series of meetings with Community Development officers at BDBC and Local Ward Councillors from Oakley, Winklebury, South Ham, Buckskin, Kempshott and Oakley. The applicant advises that these discussions have helped to inform the production of the Community Development Strategy.
8.9.2. There are a number of existing community halls within wards adjoining the site including Winklebury, Buckskin, Rooksdown, Kempshott and Oakley. The application proposes that community use facilities would be provided within each of the Neighbourhood Centres and the s106 also secures the provision of a third community facility. The application proposes a minimum of 1500sqm GIA of community floorspace within the developable site overall with associated amenity space and parking provided. The ES supporting the application describes that each of the community centres would serve new and existing communities, including a range of existing local groups. The community buildings would be accessible by foot and bicycle and served with car parking or located close to publicly shared parking spaces within the local centres. The location of the community buildings would be agreed as part of the relevant Key Phase submission and subsequent Reserved Matters.
8.9.3. The key policies in the Local Plan relating to the provision of community facilities are CN7 (Essential Facilities and Services) and CN8 (Community, Leisure and Cultural Facilities). The policies seek to ensure that new development is supported by appropriate community infrastructure and to protect existing communities from the loss of essential services and community facilities.
8.9.4. The Manydown Development Brief SPD sets out that Manydown should not be an isolated new development and should support the development of a healthy, thriving new community through the timely provision of the necessary social and community infrastructure with local centres and schools at the heart of walkable neighbourhoods. The development also has the potential to improve the quality of life in neighbouring communities. The application is supported by a Community Development Strategy which sets out measures to create a sense of community identity within the new development from the outset, and to assist in integrating the new community with surrounding communities. Development Principle 3a of the Manydown Development Brief SPD confirms that, “The main and local centres, community facilities and schools will form the focus of activity and be at the heart of the community at Manydown. They will contribute towards the sense of place and identity of the development.”
8.9.5. The BDBC Community and Housing Team has confirmed that three permanent community facilities are required on the application site, creating no less than the 1500sqm GIA. The maximum/minimum size requirements of each of these facilities is currently being discussed. Given the limited amount of information provided to support how the phasing of development would proceed on the site, there is a requirement within the s106 to ensure that residents have early access to community facilities with the provision of a temporary community facility. Negotiations are ongoing about the size of this temporary facility with the Community and Housing Infrastructure Team confirming a minimum size of 60sqm is required. This should comprises of a hall suitable for holding small scale, events and meetings along with external space, toilets, storage space and parking. For the permanent facilities, three serviced sites within the Manydown application site with associated outdoor space and parking meeting the Local Plan parking standards are required and their provision is being secured as part of the s106 Agreement.
8.9.6. In order to support and facilitate the development of the new community, and in response to the Development Brief (section 4.3.3) the proposed development also proposes to provide funding for a Community Development Worker for a period from the first occupation of the development and for no less than 9 years through delivery. The Community Development Worker would help to develop the local community, providing opportunities for residents to get involved in the area in which they live.
8.10. Local centres
8.10.1. The Land Use Parameter Plan shows the approximate locations of the eastern and western Neighbourhood Centres. It is considered that these locations meet the requirements of Development Principle 3a of the Development Brief SPD to be in accessible locations that maximise the number of new and existing residents within walking distance, with good connections to public transport and served by public transport and green links. The description of these Centres in the key of the Parameter Plan as being the location of mixed uses also secures their role as the focus of activity at the heart of the community at Manydown as required by Development Principle 3a. In more detail:
8.10.2. The eastern Neighbourhood Centre, being located on a direct route from Winklebury to the Country Park, will be accessible to the existing community of Winklebury, to visitors to the Country Park and will be close to the schools hub. It will also be centrally located to serve those residents in the northern half of the development between the A339 to the north and Worting further to the south. Its location also offers the opportunity for it to be provided early.
8.10.3. The western Neighbourhood Centre would act as a gateway to the development in the form of a linear square and would be centrally located to serve those residents in the southern half of the scheme to the north and south of the Worting Road. Its location off the Worting Road is well placed to attract passing traffic between Basingstoke and villages to the west such as Oakley and Overton thereby supporting its viability. Policy 3b of the Manydown Development Brief sets out that “The centres should create a vibrant and viable heart to the new development”. They should include a mix of uses that create vitality and viability to Manydown, including a mix of residential, commercial, community and employment uses.” The policy also requires that the development should not compete with nearby local centres. This is considered later in the report.
8.10.4. The policy suggests that the local centres are also an appropriate location for healthcare facilities to serve the development. The centres may also make provision for food and drink, childcare and faith facilities that could be incorporated within the community provision. Some employment of appropriate scale and type could be accommodated in this area. The policy also confirms that older persons’ accommodation may be appropriate in this location due to the mix of uses and connections to public transport.
8.10.5. Both centres are proposed to be in locations accessible by foot, bicycle, public transport and car. They have the ability to accommodate a range of uses, not just retail, and thus contribute towards a sustainable pattern of development, allowing for shared trips and creation of active and vibrant places, used by people throughout the day.
8.10.6. The application was supported by a Retail Impact Assessment which formed part of the Economic Statement within the Environmental Statement. This assessment has also been looked at by Retail Consultants for the Local Planning Authority.
Retail and Commercial Uses
8.10.7. The proposals for the site include the provision of up to 8.9 ha of local shopping, social and community facilities. This element of the development comprises an out-of-centre retail development. In accordance with Local Plan Policy EP3 and paras 86-90 of the NPPF (2019), the development is therefore required to satisfy the ‘sequential test’ and the ‘impact test’.
8.10.8. The ES sets out the quantum of the proposed retail and town centre uses and this is set out in the table below:
Use & Number Maximum Maximum Floorspace(sqm) of Units GIA Sales Area Per Unit Total Per Unit A1 Food store 1 unit 2,000 2,000 1,250 1,250 A1 Other Convenience Not 640 2,000 400 1,250 Retail specified A1 Comparison Retail 4 units 150 600 120 480 A1 Retail Services 6 units 150 900 120 720 (such as dry cleaners and hair dressers) and A2 A3-A5 Food and Drink 6 units 150 900 120 720 Total 6,400 4,420
The assessment of those potential uses is set out below.
8.11. Retail
8.11.1. The applicant is seeking permission for an ‘anchor’ supermarket with a maximum net sales area of 1,250 sqm net (2,000 sqm GIA). This size of unit could be taken up by a range of different food store operators. The supporting documents confirm that the remaining 1,250 sqm net (2,000 sqm GIA) could accommodate small convenience store units and speciality units such as butchers, greengrocer/bakery/off licence for example. The applicant has confirmed that the sales areas for the units has been calculated to ensure both commercial success and to ensure no significant adverse impact on existing centres.
8.11.2. Policy SS3.10 includes a requirement to provide local shopping facilities and the Manydown Development Brief SPD provides further detail on this stating that they will “…accommodate the commercial hubs of the development, and facilities that meet the needs of the new community as well as benefitting existing local residents”. Development Principle 3b also advises that, “The retail uses in the centres should comprise principally convenience floorspace and should complement the wider offer of the town centre and not seek to compete with nearby local centres”.
8.11.3. BDBC Policy EP3 is also relevant to the consideration of this application. This confirms that any development that would harm the vitality and viability of a defined centre would not be permitted. Basingstoke Town Centre is at the top of the hierarchy of centres and is approximately 6 kilometres from the site. Policy EP3 also requires that development for main town centre uses such as that proposed, with a net floorspace exceeding 250 sqm, be supported by an Impact Assessment confirming that the development would not have a significant adverse impact on existing centres.
8.11.4. Paragraph 89(a) of the revised NPPF requires assessment of ‘the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal’.
Impact on Defined Centres
8.11.5. The Top of the Town in Basingstoke is the subject of active town centre management and a focus for investment (e.g. the Council-led ‘Top of the Town Grant Scheme’ for shopfront improvements). The applicant has assessed the implications of the local centres proposed for the Manydown development and concluded that the Top of Town area would be unaffected. This conclusion has considered its localised and separate catchment area. This view also takes into account the modest scale and nature of provision proposed by the applicant when compared to the Top of the Town (and Basingstoke Town Centre as a whole) that has a wide range of retail and non-retail attractions; and as such, has a broad function while its overall vitality is not dependent on food and drink provision.
8.11.6. Brighton Hill is one of the defined centres and is located approximately 4.5 kilometres from Manydown. Following discussions between the applicant and the LPA, further information has been provided in relation to the impact of the development on the vitality and viability of Brighton Hill District Centre (BHDC) due to a potential loss of linked trips, footfall and expenditure.
8.11.7. The applicant’s retail consultants undertook a site visit to the Brighton Hill District Centre in October 2018 to record the current composition of uses and occupiers. This more up-to-date information can be compared with previous audits in 2008 (carried out by CJ in their retail studies for the Local Planning Authority) and 2012 in relation to a Public Inquiry for a new retail store to better understand how BHDC has changed over time. It also provides a basis on which to assess the current role and function of BHDC and its overall vitality.
8.11.8. BHDC has a diverse mix of shops, services and facilities that principally meet the day-to-day shopping, service, leisure and wider needs of the community. These include a medical centre, a veterinary surgery, a fitness centre, a pharmacy, a restaurant and take-away outlets as well as an ASDA supermarket. The applicant has confirmed that occupancy of the centre has remained stable over the last decade, and when the applicant surveyed the centre in October 2018 there were no vacant units. They also noted that the car park was busy, particularly in the area outside the health centre. A recent site visit has confirmed these observations to still be valid.
8.11.9. The applicant’s retail consultants have concluded that, “It is evident from the foregoing that BHDC is a strong and stable centre. Despite structural changes in the retail sector and prevailing market conditions (which have severely affected town centres across the UK since 2008) it has maintained a steady composition of uses and a relatively high proportion of longstanding occupiers. Overall, we would conclude that BHDC functions well as a district centre and performs an important role in the local retail hierarchy. Importantly, in our view, it does not appear to be exclusively reliant on Asda: the centre has a reasonably diverse mix of uses for its size including a small number of non-retail attractions.” On this basis, the LPA’s consultant has also concluded that the weight of evidence shows that Brighton Hill District Centre is both vital and viable and that the size and scale of retail development proposed on the site could be accommodated without resulting in significant adverse impact on existing centres in accordance with Policy EP3 and the NPPF (2019).
8.11.10. The applicant provided further information to explain the small scale of the proposed units. On this basis, the LPA Retail consultants agreed that they would mainly serve the needs of the new resident population and their potential draw from designated centres would be limited and so would not significantly harm the vitality or viability of existing centres in the vicinity of the site.
Winklebury and Buckskin
8.11.11. There are no defined centres within Winklebury and Buckskin. The Policy protection described above therefore does not apply to these locations. However, the applicant has also undertaken work to assess the potential impact upon non- designated shopping parades at Winklebury and Buckskin. The applicant’s assessment is qualitative as, due to the lack of baseline sales information for the parades, it is not possible to assess the impact upon them in the same quantitative manner as the designated centres.
8.11.12. The assessment (MSD9R: Economic Statement pages 33-34), explains that the two convenience retailers in Winklebury are too small to provide fully for the local top-up shopping needs of Winklebury, and thus some locally-generated convenience goods shopping already takes place outside the ward, which the new centres on Manydown could meet.
8.11.13. Winklebury centre would still be the closest convenience shopping location for many residents in Winklebury even after Manydown has been built. Furthermore, the creation of the public transport corridor along Winklebury Way would have the potential to increase the passing trade.
8.11.14. Any impact upon Buckskin would be minimised due to its physical separation from the site. The Manual for Streets (DfT, 2007) promoted the concept of walkable neighbourhoods and these are typically characterised by having a range of facilities within 10 minutes’ walking distance (about 800m) of residential areas. The distance between the closest of the centres and Buckskin is in excess of this distance.
8.11.15. The comparison offer in the parade would be relatively robust due to the nature of the retail offer. The applicant therefore concludes that ‘there would be no significant adverse impacts on the local parades of shops as a result of the new local centre(s) in the proposed development’. Although it is recognised that the extent of any impact is difficult to quantify, for the reasons set out above, there is no planning policy objection to this element of the application.
Conclusion on commercial uses
8.11.16. It is considered necessary and reasonable for planning conditions to be imposed to help mitigate any impact of the proposed Class A1-A5 floorspace and to ensure that the sizes of individual units and the number of units of particular types are controlled. This will include limits on: (i) the gross / net floorspace of the local centre and anchor food store; (ii) the maximum unit sizes; and (iii) the maximum / minimum number of units. Further conditions would need to be applied to the food store anchor to limit it to the sale of Class A1 food only and this is secured under Condition 52.
8.11.17. Local Plan Policy EP1 sets out an economic growth and investment strategy for the borough that includes, ‘permitting employment uses at the strategic housing sites detailed in Policy SS3.10 [Manydown] and 3.11 where the employment use is of a scale and type appropriate to the site’s location and where they will contribute to the creation of a sustainable mixed use community’. The MSPD also supports the provision of employment facilities of an ‘appropriate scale and type’. The SPD is underpinned by Garden City Principles (as ‘reinvented by the Town and Country Planning Association for the 21st Century’, and supported by para 52 of the NPPF), of which principle 5 seeks ‘a wide range of local jobs in the Garden City within easy commuting distance of homes’. It is therefore accepted that the provision of employment floorspace is an important element of a sustainable mixed-use community, and is acceptable on this site.
8.11.18. Local Plan Policy EP3 (Town, District and Local Centres) requires an Impact Assessment for main town centre uses in out of centre locations exceeding 250sqm. As the definition of ‘main town centre uses’ in the NPPF and the Local Plan includes offices, this would technically be a requirement of this application. In this instance however, Policy EP1 explicitly supports employment in this location. The Economic Statement sets out that the development could accommodate up to 2,400sqm of net space and could include small to medium offices above shops and also the potential for an ‘innovation centre’. It is considered necessary to limit the amount of floorspace to that proposed and this is included as part of Condition 52.
8.12. Healthcare facilities
8.12.1. The Manydown Development Brief Principle 3b: Uses in the centres advises that an appropriate site for healthcare services should be provided. Land for a health care facility (minimum size of 250sqm) is to be secured as part of the s106 Agreement and would be located in one of the local centres. The indicative phasing currently identifies this being in the Western Centre. The space and indicative location for this facility is considered appropriate and the legal agreement enables this to be provided either as serviced land or as part of a larger building within the development.
8.12.2. The Community Investment Framework for Basingstoke notes that there is currently poor access to health care in the area. There are four GP practices and five dental surgeries within 3km of the site. The Community Development Strategy which supports the application confirms that with the exception of Rooksdown Doctors Practice, which is operating substantially over capacity (a ratio of 3,292 patients per GP compared with a target ratio of 1,800), the other three existing GP practices are shown to have from around 160 nominal patient capacity (Gillies Health Centre) to 360 and 383 capacity (Camrose Medical Partnership and Oakley Surgery respectively).
8.12.3. The applicant has been in discussions with the Community Health Partnerships (CHP) and the North Hampshire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) in relation to new heathcare provision within the site and they have indicated the western centre (part of a ‘mixed-use’ area on the parameter plans) as the preferred location for a facility. The CCG have recognised that this may not be within the first phase of the development, however, it is felt that there is capacity to serve the east of Manydown in line with the CCG’s aspiration to provide health facilities as part of the regeneration project in Winklebury. The CCG has not provided clarification on the scale and type of facility to be accommodated, however the applicant has calculated that the development generates the requirement for the provision for six consulting/examination rooms, plus two treatment rooms.
8.12.4. The exact location of the health facility would be reviewed with the CCG and CHP during the next stages of the development which could include an area Development Brief for healthcare provision in the western Local Centre, through to the submission of a Reserved Matters application.
8.13. Sports and leisure facilities including playing pitches
8.13.1. The approach to outdoor sports provision is set out in the Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan and in more detail in document MSD3: Landscape Strategy. The Landscape Strategy includes an illustration of how the sports provision could be laid out and the Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan shows that sports provision would be located in the southern part of the site to the south of the B3400 (Worting Road).
8.13.2. In order to provide for the number of residents associated with this development the BDBC Policy requirement is for approximately 10 adult football pitches. Following discussions between the applicant and the Sports Infrastructure Officer the number of playing pitches has been reduced to the equivalent of 4 adult sized football pitches and 1 3G artificial grass pitch. This provision would still accommodate the same number of available community use hours but would reduce the ongoing maintenance costs.
Outdoor Sports Provision
8.13.3. The applicant has calculated an area of 8.4ha as the requirement for outdoor sports provision based on the maximum number of homes and anticipated population. This was calculated using the guidelines within Basingstoke and Deane’s Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD and the BDBC Sports Officer has confirmed that this is appropriate.
8.13.4. The application proposes:
4 x outdoor playing pitches, grass, well drained, no floodlighting; 4 x MUGA/tennis courts with all weather surface; 1 x 3G artificial pitch, with floodlighting, which could be shared provision with the secondary school; and Changing facilities for the outdoor playing pitches and car parking.
8.13.5. The applicant has suggested that a floodlit artificial grass pitch could be located at the secondary school site. If this approach was not supported then a flood lit artificial grass pitch will be provided elsewhere within the development area. The location shown on the parameter plans for the sports hub, and illustrated within MSD3, is not suitable for flood lighting (due to landscape and ecology sensitivities) and the applicant has confirmed that an artificial grass pitch in this location would not be floodlit.
8.13.6. The location of the 3G pitch would need to be explored in more detail following any grant of outline planning permission once the development has been worked up through the next approval stages. If located within the secondary school site then it would require a sufficient community use agreement with HCC to ensure the facility was protected for community use and further discussions regarding the timing of the facility would also need to be carried out. Confirmation of adequate associated facilities being provided would also be required (car parking/changing provision etc).
8.13.7. The Facilities Provision Officer has confirmed that they are content with the amount of proposed provision on the site and it is considered that a cascade arrangement within the s106 agreement can be secured to ensure that the facility is either located with the school (with appropriate agreements in place); on an alternative on-site location; or an off-site contribution.
Indoor Sports Hall
8.13.8. There is the requirement for an indoor sports hall equivalent to the size of 4 badminton courts. The supporting documentation suggests that this could be located in close proximity to the outdoor sports pitches, such that parking and changing facilities could be shared. This is to be secured through the s106 agreement.
Place of Worship
8.13.9. Reference has been made in a letter of representation regarding the potential for a place of worship to be provided at Manydown. Whilst not proposed as part of the outline submission, the application includes D1 and D2 Uses and does not preclude such provision.
SS3.10 (d) Phased provision of two primary schools (a two form entry and a three form entry) and also reserve land for the phased provision of a secondary school, if required;
8.13.10. The application proposes the provision of two primary schools; one two form entry and one three form entry and land for a secondary school. The initially submitted Land Use Parameter Plan identified three potential locations for the secondary school site however following discussions between the applicant and HCC as the Local Education Authority (LEA), this has reduced down to one approximate location on the latest Land Use Parameter Plan.
8.13.11. The location of the secondary school site and two primary school sites are shown indicatively on the Land Use Parameter Plan. They show the approximate location for the secondary school with a primary school to the east of the site and a second primary school to the west of the site. The plan allows for some flexibility at this outline stage and further detail including triggers and broad sequence for delivery would be confirmed at the Site-Wide Framework stage, with a development brief for each school coming forward at the Key Phase Stage for approval prior to Reserved Matters.
8.14. Primary Schools
8.14.1. There have been a number of variations discussed between the applicant and HCC in relation to school provision. It is proposed that HCC Education would construct the primary schools with the applicant providing the financial contribution for the construction. HCC as LEA has confirmed that both primary school sites need to be a minimum of 2.8ha and 2.2ha of ‘usable land’ respectively as no site analysis has been undertaken and therefore it is important to secure enough land that is suitable for the schools and associated development to be successfully accommodated. The 2.8ha site would be for a 3 Form Entry (3FE) school, and the 2.2ha site would be for a 2FE. It may be that the first primary school would open as a 2FE and then extend to 3FE when required. The trigger within the s106 for the provision of the first primary school is 400 dwellings and this has been agreed by the LEA. Discussions are continuing with regard to the exact sizing of the schools and this is forming part of the on-going s106 negotiations.
8.14.2. The County Council as Local Education Authority has reiterated the need to ensure that schools are located in the best possible location to promote sustainable travel and ensure that health and safety of pupils is not compromised. The principal road through the site will require safe crossing points for school pupils to be carefully designed to deal with the flow of movement to access the schools. In addition, highway design in close proximity of the schools will need to take account of those parents who may need to drive to school but manage how and where they park safely, at a distance from the schools main entry points to avoid pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. The County Education Officer advises that, “It is important that schools are located in the best possible location to promote sustainable travel and ensure that health and safety of pupils is not compromised.” The specific details for the school would be secured as part of the Primary School Development Brief which would come forward prior to any Reserved Matters submission.
8.15. Secondary School
8.15.1. Land for a secondary school up to 12FE is safeguarded within the proposed development. The Infrastructure Delivery Strategy supporting the application advises that this land will be transferred to HCC as Education Authority they have clarified their future strategy unless the school is to be constructed by the Applicant. The mechanism, terms and triggers for this will be agreed through the Section 106 and this is being progressed.
8.15.2. At the current time and at this outline stage it is predicted that the pupil yield for this development would be 5 forms of entry with 30 pupils representing a form of entry. This expected yield of additional secondary age pupils requires a new secondary school site to be provided. It is possible that with more certainty as the development progresses over numbers it may be that provision can be secured off-site at existing schools with expansions where necessary.
8.16. School Places
HCC LEA has confirmed that the phasing of school places would be reviewed as the detail of the development progresses. This would be based on build-out rates and type and tenure of the properties. HCC LEA confirms that it is intended that the new schools serve the new housing development, however the school admission policy does not preclude pupils form outside the area applying for a school place and they may be successful in gaining a place at the school subject to local demand for places.
8.17. Travel to School
The exact location of schools and their relationship with other community facilities such as nurseries and pre-schools has not been determined at this outline stage. HCC has confirmed that consideration should be given to ensure access can be through active travel to as walking or cycling, rather than relying on car usage. This would also assist in addressing some of the concerns raised around air quality and congestion around school sites.
8.18. Developer Contributions for Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)
HCC Developer Contributions Guidance sets out that for developments over 500 dwellings an assessment will be made of the need to secure additional accommodation for pupils with SEND at an appropriate local school. Special school provision across the County is already at capacity and the County Council and the applicants have been discussing the best method for securing SEND provision for this development. It has been concluded that provision within the new schools would be appropriate and suitable contributions could be secured as part of the s106 agreement within the overall contribution package.
8.19. Post 16 Years
The proposed development would result in additional pressure on post 16 provision. The applicant is required to create and deliver an Employment and Skills Plan (ESP) in order to achieve social and economic objectives relating to education and skills, in accordance with guidance set by the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) National Skills Academy for Construction, Client Based Approach (or equivalent). The Local Authority shall set out the local priorities for employment and skills activity, to include Apprenticeships, Traineeships, Work Experience opportunities and Careers Activity with schools.
8.20. Nursery and pre-school provision is considered later in this report. Subject to the completion of an appropriately worded s106 agreement it is considered that the application complies with criterion (d) of Policy SS3.10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
SS3.10 (e) Include appropriate green space/green infrastructure, including allotments, to meet local needs in line with the council’s adopted standards; ensuring that all green space is provided on site , and provide links to assist in the delivery of green infrastructure networks within and adjoining the site;
8.21. Open Space Requirement and Provision
8.21.1. The Open Space and Landscape Parameter plan sets out how some of the strategic open space could be provided on the site. It sets out the broad 8.21.2. approach to the distribution of the strategic open space and seeks to fix matters such as the broad location and number of neighbourhood parks (three neighbourhood parks shown as A, B and C on the parameter plan). The parameter plan does not show all of the Multi-Functional Green Space (MFGS) required by the Local Plan (65sqm/person). The reason for this is that the parameter plan does not settle the detailed design of any of the spaces shown or the open space that would be required on each eventual development parcel, which in itself will be determined as the detailed design and layout progresses through the next approval stages.
Amount
8.21.3. The NPPF states at paragraph 96 that “Access to a network of high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for the health and well-being of communities”. It is clear that well planned and designed community infrastructure provides places for people to meet and interact as well as meeting specific needs to support healthy communities. Community facilities and open spaces can help create a vibrant community with a sense of place, and can minimise the need to travel elsewhere for leisure and recreation.
8.21.4. In relation to new green space for proposed development Policy EM5 (Green Infrastructure) of the Local Plan states:
“Development proposals will only be permitted where they do not:
a) Prejudice the delivery of the council’s Green Infrastructure Strategy (and subsequent updates); b) Result in the fragmentation of the green infrastructure network by severing important corridors/links; or c) Result in undue pressure on the network which cannot be fully mitigated.
The council will support proposals which seek to improve links and remedy identified deficiencies in the green infrastructure network in accordance with the council’s Green Infrastructure Strategy.”
8.21.5. Appendix 4 of the Local Plan sets out the open space requirements for development. In/adjacent to Basingstoke there is a requirement to provide 65sqm of multifunctional greenspace per person generated by a development. Based on the maximum development potential of 3520 dwellings the development would need to deliver 54.91 hectares of MFGS and 4224sqm of equipped play. MFGS is stated as being:
Amenity Green Space (including informal play space and kickabout) Accessible Natural Green Space Parks Green corridors and buffers Important biodiversity sites and landscape features.
8.21.6. There are no policy requirements setting out how MFGS should be apportioned to the various categories stated above. Accordingly the final mix of MFGS will be resolved through the Site Wide, Key Phase and ultimately reserved matters stages within the scope of the Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan.
8.21.7. In relation to the quantitative standards for MFGS the information submitted in support of the application sets out the commitment within the Design and Access Statement (DAS) at Table 4.5 that the above quantitative requirements are recognised and proposed by the application. However, as the parameter plan does not show the precise layout of all of the open space requirement (for reasons stated above) it is necessary to secure the requirement within the s106 Agreement. This will include the overall amount (based on a maximum of 3520 dwellings) but clearly stated so that if the maximum number of dwellings is not built out the overall MFGS would proportionately come down, again using the 65sqm/person Local Plan requirement.
8.21.8. The clear statement of intent within the DAS also separates out the Country Park as a defined provision. This addresses directly initial comments from the Parks and Open Spaces Development Officer whereby the application as originally submitted was unclear as to whether the Country Park was being relied upon at all to provide elements of the MFGS. Similarly the more recently stated concerns regarding the need to separate out Equipped Play requirements (4,224sqm) and allotments (2.8ha) have been clarified by the information set out in the DAS. This is consistent with Table 7 set out in the Planning Statement submitted with the application. All of these requirements are recommended to be secured through the s106 Agreement. Accordingly it is considered that the application meets Policy SS3.10 in “ensuring all green space is provided on site”.
8.21.9. In addition the s106 Agreement will ensure that all areas that are attributed to meeting the MFGS minimum size requirements set out in Appendix 4, for example, Neighbourhood Parks being a minimum of 2ha and all MFGS being a minimum of 15m wide and at least 0.2ha to count towards the overall provision.
Timing of provision
8.21.10. In relation to timing of open space being provided a second part of Policy EM5 states:
“Development proposals will be permitted where it can be clearly demonstrated that green infrastructure can be provided and phased to support the requirements of proposed development and be in accordance with the council’s adopted green space standards. Green space and equipped play will normally be provided on- site.”
8.21.11. The Council’s Green Infrastructure (GI) Strategy sets out an inventory of the Basingstoke Town area with regards to current provision of open space. The information is expressed by way of an overall amount when considered against the current Local Plan standard of 65sqm/person. Parts of the site are within or otherwise substantially adjoining the Town Wards of Buckskin, Winklebury and Rooksdown. The GI Strategy (November 2018) sets out the following inventory of existing open space per person in these wards:
Buckskin – 18.2 sqm/person Winklebury – 28.33 sqm/person Rooksdown – 22.96 sqm/person
8.21.12. The same approach has been undertaken for Sherborne St John and Oakley and Deane Wards which show they are not in deficit against the rural standard of 32sqm/person.
8.21.13. The NPPF sets out that planning obligations cannot be used to ensure that development makes up for existing shortfalls as obligations need to be based on the impact of the development itself. In this regard the amount of open space obligations cannot be more than the policy requirements. However, within the context of the shortfall in adjoining wards it is material to consider the timing of delivery of open space as the development is delivered to ensure that new populations are not reliant on existing open spaces, thereby making an existing situation worse.
8.21.14. In this regard the s106 Agreement sets out the principle to be adhered to that the open space requirements will be delivered so that the development does not create a deficit. This will require careful monitoring and consideration at the Key Phase approval stage. In particular Condition 7 sets out the need for various information that would assist with the monitoring. A “Key Phase Schedule of Uses and Quantum of Development” would come in alongside the plan defining the proposed key phase, which would be forward looking in regards to open space provision planned. A “Key Phase Delivery Progress Statement” will set out the progress to date across previous key phases to ensure that the overall site requirements are met and a “Key Phase Delivery Plan” will provide more detail on how the sequencing of reserved matters where relevant will deliver the intended, in this instance, open space requirements.
8.21.15. In addition to this there are stated backstop triggers for the delivery of neighbourhood parks as part of the overall MFGS requirement. These are identifiable and necessary parts of the development and therefore can be drawn out in this way.
Distribution
8.21.16. The Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan sets out the location of the neighbourhood parks, their distribution across three locations (A, B and C on the parameter plan) and their minimum size of 2 hectares, this being the minimum size required by the Local Plan open space requirements. The Parks and Open Space Development Officer has raised concerns at all stages of the application that the proposed distribution of the neighbourhood parks is contrary to the published requirements of the Manydown Development Brief SPD and that the commitment to only a 2 hectare minimum is insufficient, notwithstanding that for neighbourhood parks in general the Local Plan requirement is for a minimum 2ha. In addition concern is raised by the Parks and Open Space Development Officer that the central neighbourhood park is shown as being split by the roads proposed to lead from the Winklebury Way/Roman Road junction, thereby reducing its effectiveness as a continuous space, missing the opportunity for a quieter space and a potentially more positive gateway to the development.
8.21.17. The Manydown Development Brief SPD sets out in more detail the articulation of what the allocation Policy should require. In relation to Neighbourhood Parks the SPD is specific at Development Principle 4f (Provision of green space) that the strategic green spaces should be provided by way of: a strategic green space in the general location of Catterns Crossroads Scheduled Monument; a centrally located principal neighbourhood park; and a neighbourhood park to the south of Worting Road.
8.21.18. The proposals therefore do not accord directly with the SPD. In particular this relates to the central neighbourhood park where there is nothing within the application that suggests this would be a “principal” neighbourhood park by being larger or more accommodating of a wider mix of uses set out in the Manydown Development Brief SPD. The parameter plan is detailed enough to show that the 2ha miniumum can be accommodated in the central neighbourhood park to the north of the proposed access from Roman Road. Similarly the design approach can be refined in the more detailed stages to ensure that the opportunity to provide a gateway to the site, with open space flanked on either side of the road, can be achieved.
8.21.19. The Site Wide Framework and Key Phase submissions will provide further refinement as to the final design approach for these spaces before reserved matters applications are submitted but these will not change the detail on the parameter plans for approval which only commit to a minimum 2 hectare size (a minimum requirement which is stated as equal across each) and the distribution set which as stated above is not fully in accordance with Principle 4f of the SPD.
8.21.20. However, this does need to be balanced against other requirements within Policy SS3.10 and the SPD for strategic MFGS. Criterion (e) of Policy SS3.10 requires the development to “provide links to assist in the delivery of green infrastructure networks within and adjoining the site”. In a slightly different context, but nevertheless leading to a similar approach to more linear spaces across the site criterion (i) of Policy SS3.10 requires the separate identity of Winklebury to be maintained through “conserving the ancient boundary of Roman Road as a green boundary”.
8.21.21. The Manydown Development Brief states in various locations the need for landscape corridors and buffers. The parameter plan does set out a general approach to providing a significant amount of MFGS as buffers and corridors across and around the site. For example, Development Principle 4b (Responding to the wider landscape) requires that development should include:
“Utilising and enhancing existing vegetation network and green corridors within the site as a framework for development. Open spaces and landscape corridors on the edge of the development. Landscape corridors and buffers should provide links to the green infrastructure network beyond the site.”
8.21.22. Development Principle 4c deals specifically with the need for development to deliver landscape corridors. In addition to the landscape edges of the development, facilitating a better relationship with the wider landscape, the requirement for landscape corridors is set out with regards to the need for facilitating movement and amenity through the development. The following locations, with the specific design and alignment to be informed by the site’s natural characteristics are set out in Development Principle 4c:
Connecting Roman Road to the Country Park. Connecting Church Lane in Worting to the Country Park. Connecting Worting Road to the Country Park; and Connecting Worting Road to the southern boundary of the site by the railway line.
8.21.23. The Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan shows these connections through the bias towards corridors as strategic open space. Part of the consequence is the balance then reached in relation to other strategic open spaces such as the neighbourhood parks where the stated sizes are potentially smaller than would be envisaged by the SPD and the Parks and Open Spaces Development Officer. Nevertheless, on balance the distribution and set out of strategic open space, insofar as is for approval at this outline stage, is considered acceptable.
Uses within MFGS
8.21.24. The Parks and Open Space Development Officer has raised concern that some of the stated strategic MFGS on the Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan is also stated as being visual buffers, biodiversity features, green corridors and/or landscape features. As set out above these do fall within the definitions of MFGS set out in Appendix 4 of the Local Plan. The concern however relates to more recent wording in the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees SPD (2018) which seeks to provide additional detail to the various types of open spaces.
8.21.25. In relation to Accessible Natural Green Space (ANGs) (which can be one part of the overall MFGS) Appendix 4.2 of the SPD defines ANGs as:
“…green space which is designed and/or managed to encourage biodiversity but is freely accessible to people for informal recreation (subject to ecological sensitivities) and where a feeling of naturalness is allowed to predominate. Provision for informal recreation may include a network of paths, seating, interpretation etc. Types of ANGS include:
Woodlands Grasslands (managed for floristic diversity) Waterways, water bodies and wetlands. Heathland Landscape features, green corridors and buffers – areas whose primary purpose is for wildlife protection/enhancement; protection of important landscape features; provision of pedestrian, cycle and/or wildlife transport links and/or buffering.”
8.21.26. On the basis of the Local Plan requirements and SPD any ANGs proposed would therefore have to be freely accessible. The Local Plan and SPD however does not prevent “important biodiversity sites” forming part of the MFGS. It will therefore be a matter for the later stages of approval to resolve the final mix of MFGS. This will include consideration of how the mix of MFGS comes forward and whether it can be compatible with the nature of ecological features required by the development. For example, should future approval stages propose elements that are non-accessible (for ecological reasons) and fail the minimum size standards for MFGS then they cannot be counted towards the overall requirement, notwithstanding the stated key on the parameter plans. The s106 Agreement and conditions will control this element through the future approval stages.
8.21.27. The application recognises the need for access to be accommodated as set out in section 4.3 of the submitted Landscape Strategy which states:
“Biodiversity and Landscape features are MFGS whose primary purpose is for wildlife protection or enhancement and/or the protection of important landscape features, but where public access for informal recreation can be accommodated.”
8.21.28. Taking the above into account and the extent of the application for consideration at this outline stage it is considered that the approach to open space provision overall is considered acceptable and in accordance with Policy EM5 generally, the Manydown Development Brief SPD and the NPPF.
SS3.10 (f) Make provision for a country park, as identified on the Policies Map, which is accessible to existing nearby residential areas;
8.22. Provision for a Country Park
8.22.1. The Country Park area is defined on the inset Map to Policy SS3.10. It is included within the red line of the application site. All of the parameter plans submitted with the application (with the exception of the Building Heights and Density Parameter Plan as it is not relevant to this plan) consistently identify the Country Park area, being separate from the remainder of the developable area of the application site.
8.22.2. The 101ha Country Park site is to the west/northwest of the Manydown allocation site and includes ancient woodlands, recent woodland planting and arable fields and hedgerows on a gently undulating topography. It separates the allocation site from the wider open countryside and the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) to the west.
8.22.3. Natural England and DEFRA set out criteria for achieving accredited status for a Country Park and these criteria have provided a starting point for the Vision of the Country Park which is outlined in Section 5 of the submitted Landscape Strategy. Combined with a review of other case studies of Country Parks in the Hampshire area, reference to consultation with Hampshire Countryside Services and various illustrative material of potential layout the Landscape Strategy describes one way some of the requirements of the Manydown Development Brief SPD could be achieved.
8.22.4. Development Principle 4g of the Manydown Development Brief sets out that the Country Park should provide for:
a) Areas of parkland, grassland and woodland which protect and enhance the biodiversity and landscape value of the Park whilst improving public accessibility. b) Visitor facilities and car parking accessible to Manydown residents, Basingstoke and its surrounding area. c) Footpaths connecting the housing at Manydown, the Country Park and the wider countryside. d) The protection and enhancement of ecological networks and habitats that provide links to the wider green infrastructure network beyond the site. e) Mitigation for views from the North Wessex Downs AONB.
8.22.5. It is advised that the planning application be supported by details of the delivery mechanism, timescales, the design and layout of the country park, and a strategy for its management, to demonstrate how the above requirements will be met. The Community Development Strategy supporting the application sets out that the Country Park would be delivered in phase 1B with the Country Park hub opening in a later phase.
8.22.6. Limited information has been provided on how the Country Park would be managed and funded in the long term or how it would be delivered in relation to timescales. The applicant has confirmed that in order to meet Natural England’s essential criteria for a Country Park, the land needs to be free to enter and available for informal recreational use. It is considered that the arrangements for the delivery and management of the Country Park could be provided within a Country Park Development Brief which is to be secured by condition (5) and would then inform the development coming forward. Given the relationship between the Country Park and potentially multiple Key Phases it is considered appropriate to secure this Development Brief at the Site Wide Framework stage.
8.22.7. The supporting documentation also makes reference to the provision of a Country Park Hub. Whilst not specifically referenced in Policy SS3.10, this type of feature is referenced in Development 4g of the Manydown Development Brief and as set out above.
8.22.8. Policy SS3.10 does not expand beyond requiring the provision of a Country Park as part of the Manydown development. It is therefore considered that whilst the application is very limited in terms of details of what is being proposed beyond a 101 ha Country Park and Country Park Hub, in planning policy terms the application meets the requirements of criterion (f) of Policy SS3.10 as there are mechanisms to secure its provision. In the absence of a fully worked up delivery plan at this stage, the s106 Agreement secures the final provision of the Country Park at 3000 dwellings given the strategic nature of the provision. The information submitted through the Site Wide Framework and Key Phase stages will therefore need to be submitted within this framework.
SS3.10 (g) Respond positively to the special characteristics and sensitivities of the landscape, including the setting of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and also the setting and form of existing development. Visual intrusion into the wider landscape should be limited; the design of outward facing edges of development should respect and enhance the adjacent countryside and opportunities should be taken to provide linkages to the existing landscape framework;
8.23. Existing Landscape
8.23.1. The character of the site is currently rural and agricultural, made up of a network of fields and hedgerows. There are two blocks of semi-natural ancient woodland within the site; Wootton Copse (11ha) and Worting Wood (10.5ha) and an additional area of woodland known as Marvel Row Copse which is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). Green Lane SINC runs through the centre of the site on a north/south alignment.
8.23.2. The landform generally rises from the south of the site to a ridge which extends across the middle of the site, skirting the south of Worting Copse and Mothers Copse before extending up to the northernmost edge. Visually there are open views across the site from wide sections of Roman Road, and also from points along Worting Road. A network of Public Rights of Way cross the site, and the site is therefore highly visible from these routes. Enclosure is provided by the woodland blocks which limit a number of views from the north.
8.23.3. The site is bound to the north by the A339 Kingsclere Road, which forms an important route into and out of Basingstoke from the west and north-west. The land to the east of the site is predominantly residential in use and suburban in character, including the areas of Winklebury and Buckskin. The eastern boundary of most of the site is formed by Roman Road, which is a local distributor road running north to south and marking the existing western edge of Basingstoke. Roman Road joins to Roman Way at its southern end and this short link meets the B3400 Worting Road at a roundabout junction. Worting Road runs approximately east to west and bisects part of the site, providing access to the west and southwest of the site including the village of Oakley and Wootton St Lawrence. To the southeast of the site is the Conservation Area village of Worting and beyond this Basingstoke.
8.24. Application Proposals
The application is supported by a Landscape Strategy which was revised in July 2018. The strategy confirms that, “Existing natural features have shaped this strategy, such that hedgerows and trees will be retained where possible, except where access points into the site are required or where the Main Street would need to cross a small number of hedgerows. Buffers to valuable features are accommodated within this strategy to prevent unnecessary adverse effects on habitats. All Public Rights of Way will be accommodated within a green corridor through the development to ensure they retain a largely natural setting.” The creation of the Main Street would also result in the Green Lane being crossed and this is discussed in detail in the Biodiversity Section (criterion k) of this report.
8.25. North Wessex Downs AONB
8.25.1. Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan requires applications for development to demonstrate that the proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual character of the area concerned. This is reinforced with Development Principle 4b: Responding to the Wider Landscape which confirms that in particular, development should conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and its setting, and minimise the impact upon views from and to it.
8.25.2. The boundary of the North Wessex Downs AONB is approximately 700 metres from the western edge of the Manydown site. The AONB includes chalk downs and grassland and is important for its landscape value as well as including important sites for nature conservation and cultural heritage. The Country Park land would sit between the site and this boundary. Some views of the northern part of the site from the nearest parts of the AONB are possible however the intervisibility between the majority of development site and the AONB is limited by the screening provided by existing woodland and hedgerows and the landform.
8.25.3. The Landscape Strategy confirms that, “The primary landscape objective of the proposed development is to retain and accentuate green features within the site, to provide a high quality living environment with a range of diverse habitats and wildlife corridors. The proposed development will create a strong relationship between the urban form and the surrounding open countryside.”
8.25.4. The Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan fixes a landscape feature within the Country Park land extending from Worting Wood Farm along the boundary with the development site and up to the edge of the lane known as Wootton One Mile. This feature would comprise of tree planting. This joins up with additional tree planting providing an additional landscape feature within the Manydown development site and extending along the lane and up to the boundary with the A339. It is considered that this would be sympathetic to the rural character of this edge and also appropriate to the setting of Rooksdown Cemetery which lies to the northwest of the lane. This reflects the Manydown Development Brief SPD, Development Principle 4c (Landscape corridors) which also references the requirement to provide a sensitive edge with the rural character of both the Country Park and Rooksdown Cemetery.
8.25.5. The Council’s Landscape Officer considers that the amendments to this Parameter Plan that have been made to the northern parts of the site including provision of a significant area of buffer planting adjacent to the A339 is welcomed in principle, as it will assist in screening views of new built development from the A339 road corridor which links to the North Wessex Downs AONB. As part of the amendments to the application however, the access has been re-located to the west of the existing A339/Roman Road junction and its design and scale altered. This is one of the junctions that are to be approved in detail at this outline stage.
8.25.6. The Council’s Landscape Officer has raised concerns about the scale of this junction both as a result of the amount of land take and also the inevitable loss of existing structural vegetation along this part of the road corridor. This matter was also raised as part of the representations from Rooksdown Parish Council. It is acknowledged that the creation of this junction will have an adverse impact on the existing landscape character of this part of the site and the A339, altering it from an enclosed section of highway with trees and hedgerows forming the boundary with the road to a more urban and hard landscaped feature. In relation to the impact of this junction on the character and setting of the AONB it is considered that whilst a significant change is occurring at this point on the site when compared to the existing, the impact on the protected landscape is limited by the nature of this element of the development, the distance and the intervening landscape features which maintains the rural edge between the site and the AONB.
8.25.7. When considering the development as a whole, Development Principle 4b of the Manydown Development Brief SPD confirms that development should respond positively to the topography and landscape setting of the site, and take into account sensitive views from outside and within the site.
8.25.8. Building Heights and Density Parameter Plan proposes lower and less dense development on most of the western edges of the site, bordering the Country Park. Development of up to 10m in height to the top of the roof with a density range between 15 and 30 dwellings per hectare (dph) is identified. It is considered that the Country Park provides a successful green buffer between a significant part of the development and the AONB. This, in combination with the measures proposed in relation to fixing lower building heights and densities on this western edge, provide sufficient clarity that the development could meet the aims of Local Plan policy in relation to responding positively to the setting of the North Wessex Downs AONB. This specific requirement is set out in Condition 5(b) requiring a Site Wide Urban Design Framework to take account of the interface of development with the Country Park. Further detail will then be required through the design codes required under criterion (i) of Condition 7 and it is considered that this would ensure that the development would not adversely affect the significance of the North Wessex Downs AONB or people’s experience of it and would be in accordance with Local Plan Policy, relevant SPD’s and the aims of the North Wessex Downs AONB Position Statement on Setting.
8.26. Country Park Edge
Concern has also been raised by the Landscape Officer in relation to the height of development adjacent to the Country Park due in part to the impact on the sense of place from those within the park. This point is acknowledged however it is also relevant that the Country Park is being provided as a result of the development coming forward at Manydown and would be viewed in this context. It has been recommended that the higher development is pulled back from the edges with buildings of a maximum 2 storey at the perimeter. This would be achieved along most of this boundary. There is an area of greater density along the eastern boundary with Worting Wood Farm and the existing cottages which sit adjacent to the site boundary however it is considered that the detail of a suitable relationship between existing built form at this point could be secured through the Site Wide Urban Design Framework and subsequent design code process.
8.27. Other Landscape Impacts
8.27.1. The significant size of the development site is such that it is bound by a range of character types including rural, semi-rural, and urban. The Building Heights Parameter Plan indicates that there is a development transition across the site with boundaries on the western and north-western edges showing lower density and heights to the development edges.
8.27.2. The Manydown Development Brief SPD requires the development to create an interconnected network of natural areas and other green open spaces that link into the wider green infrastructure network. The brief states that these areas should retain and integrate the existing landscape features (trees/hedges/woods and copses) as a framework for development and it is considered that the Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan suitably achieves this.
8.27.3. The following provides an assessment of the various landscape and visual impacts of the development at locations around the site.
Visual and Landscape Character Impact Rooksdown and Winklebury
8.27.4. The Rooksdown residential area is sited immediately north of the main application site with a section of highway up to the Rooksdown Avenue roundabout included within the boundary of the application. In relation to the proposed new roundabout highway junction at the northern end of the site, the junction with the A339, the Landscape Chapter of the ES confirms that, “This amended proposal increases the land take required for highway works, through the creation of a roundabout with 5-7 lanes and central reserve with associated signage and lighting”. Additional tree survey work was undertaken to ascertain how many trees or groups of trees would be affected. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment confirms that approximately 0.52ha of tree cover including 2 category A trees, 2 category B trees, 2 category C trees as well as 14 groups of category B and C trees would need to be removed to accommodate these access works.
8.27.5. Most of the tree loss would occur along the A339, Roman Road and Rooksdown Avenue roundabout and includes the removal of the line of trees in the central landscape section between the two carriageways on Rooksdown Avenue as well as trees and planting which screen some of the properties in Julius Close. Saxon Wood Special School sits to the north of the A339 and currently benefits from trees screening the school from the A339. The loss of the trees and planting to these areas would have an adverse impact on the existing amenity provided by these trees and the screening which they provide.
8.27.6. The size of the junction is required for highway purposes to serve the new development and to ensure that it is suitable from a capacity and highway safety perspective, necessitates the loss of these existing landscape features. It is considered that there would be some opportunity for limited mitigation as part of the more detailed landscape proposals coming forward as part of next stage of the decision process to demonstrate a landscape approach to soften the impacts of this intervention into the existing landscape.
8.27.7. In relation to Winklebury, Roman Road forms the boundary with a significant part of the eastern boundary of the site to the north of the B3400. The Landscape Officer has confirmed that as part of the application site forms an extension to the urban setting of Winklebury, it is important to ensure that there is some connection between the new development and the existing residential areas. This is considered appropriate and the Land Use Parameter Plan and the Open Space Parameter Plan identifies a linear strip of Multi Functional Green Space provided along the length of this eastern boundary. This would be at least 20m wide, as confirmed in the Landscape Strategy supporting the application which is welcomed by the Landscape Officer. A primary access point is being secured at outline stage which would create a break in this buffer, opposite to Worting Way with a secondary access further north on Roman Road with the exact location to be secured as part of a later reserved matters application.
8.27.8. The Green Infrastructure is designed to effectively buffer the development from sensitive adjoining areas and to also connect and integrate the development where appropriate. For example, the linear park along Roman Road will be visually and physically permeable, allowing easy movement between the new homes and community facilities within Manydown and Winklebury. The A339 is acknowledged to be a barrier but pedestrian and cycle crossings will be accommodated and the pedestrian experience will be given full consideration at the detail design stage. Walking and cycling is also considered under criterion (l).
Visual and Landscape Character Impact Worting including the B3400 Worting Road
8.27.9. The impact on the western approach along the B3400 in relation to the heritage impacts are dealt with under criterion (h) below. In relation to landscape impact, the amended access arrangements results in the partial re-alignment of Worting Road (B3400). A section of Worting Road is to be realigned and an additional roundabout proposed between the existing Wootton St Lawrence lane to the west and the proposed southern site access cross roads.
8.27.10. The Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan secures an offset between the proposed development edge and the edge of the Worting conservation area and is shown as Strategic Multi Functional Green Space.
8.27.11. The ES advises that landscape mitigation for this part of the site would include:
A 20m buffer along the interface with the northern edge of Worting CA, with a non-continuous frontage to the 2 storey housing within this zone with the maximum building height of 10m. Two storey buildings front onto the green wedge of strategic open space on the north side of Worting Road to soften the transition between open countryside and settlement edge. Three storey buildings are proposed along the Scrapp’s Hill boundary to soften the interface between the leisure activities at the Family Farm attraction and new residential development. New hedgerow and tree planting along the realigned section of Worting Road to ensure continuity of vegetation cover as far as possible alongside the road.
8.27.12. The part of Worting Road that is within the application site boundary is a historic rural approach to Worting and is evident within the 1870-1880 Ordnance Survey maps. Part of the road sits within the Worting Conservation Area boundary and is assessed in more detail under criterion (h) of the report. From a landscape perspective, the road has a strong, rural character, and the re-alignment of a section of the road in order to provide what would appear from a landscape perspective as 2 access junctions in close proximity will have a significant impact on landscape character. This is noted in the applicants submitted Landscape Assessment, which concludes that there would be a ‘significant adverse’ impact on the character in this location which is a sensitive approach to Worting.
8.27.13. The Landscape Officer maintains concern about the continued approach in the application to include 3 storey development fronting Worting Road and concludes that given the sensitivities along this road corridor this would cause harm to local landscape character and visual amenity. It is considered that, as with some other parts of the development, a suitable approach to progress this would be to ensure that the design code for the relevant key phase includes evidence of how the design would have regard to this sensitive edge of the development. It is also important to ensure that any new planting should comprise of native species to assist in the development blending in with its surrounding context, notwithstanding the formal planting proposed in the Landscape Strategy for this part of the site.
Visual and Landscape Character Impact Buckskin and Kempshott
8.27.14. The application land to the south of the B3400 sits to the west of Buckskin with Kempshott further away from the application site boundary to the southeast. Since the application was first submitted, a 70 unit residential development (Ref 16/00391/FUL) has been approved and completed at Worting Farm, on land between the B3400 and the railway line to the south. From a visual and landscape character perspective, the relationship between the site and these areas is less direct than that with Rooksdown and Winklebury.
8.27.15. A buffer comprising of Strategic Multi Functional Green Space is proposed on the eastern and southeastern boundary and this in combination with the existing landform lessens the impact of the development on these areas.
Visual and Landcape Character Impact Wootton St Lawrence
8.27.16. The impact on coalescence and strategic gap policies are dealt with under criterion (i). The siting of the proposed Country Park which sits between the village and the Manydown site provides a significant visual and landscape buffer. To the north of the A339 and to the west of the proposed access, there is a section of the site where development is proposed close to the boundary with the existing Lane known as Wootton One Mile. The Building Heights and Density Parameter Plan secures lower densities (15-30dph) and building heights on this part of the site. The impact of residential built form in this location whilst clearly noticeable when travelling along this rural lane would be softened by the provision of additional tree planting and landscape buffers between the built form and this lane. It is considered that the development could be successfully accommodated in relation to visual and landscape character impacts without detriment to Wootton St Lawrence.
Visual and Landscape Character Impact Newfound and Oakley
8.27.17. The impact on coalescence and strategic gap policies are dealt with under criterion (i). In relation to the visual and landscape impact, views of the western part of the site from Newfound and the eastern edge of Oakley are considered within the submitted Landscape Strategy. The Primary Mitigation measure proposed in this area is the addition of hedgerow and tree planting within the landscape and visual buffers along the western site boundary. The separate planning application approved under 19/02649/FUL has also secured an alternative option is landscaping and new habitat that the applicant could bring forward. It is considered that with the proposed mitigation the impact of the development from these locations would be acceptable.
Visual and Landscape Character Impact Roman Road/Kennilworth Road and northwards
8.27.18. The dwellings along Roman Road currently form the edge of built form to the west of Basingstoke with land forming the Manydown application site rising to the west. The existing views to the west when travelling along Roman Road are of agricultural fields with Worting Wood visible in the central part of the site. The existing two storey cottages and the top part of an agricultural building can be seen when looking across the site from Kennilworth Road towards Worting Wood Farm however this built form sits well below the tree line. There is an existing concrete access track (PROW) opposite the Kenilworth Road access.
8.27.19. Whilst there is some existing planting along this boundary of the site, the Parameter Plans also secure space for a Linear Park adjacent to the boundary with Roman Road which would assist in providing some visual separation between the existing houses and the new development however it is clear from the size and scale of the new development at Manydown that it would be seen from Roman Road and beyond. It is proposed to utilise the existing planting features where possible into the new landscape feature. Beyond this boundary residential development is proposed with a density range of between 15-30 dwellings per hectare and buildings no taller than 10 metres in height within higher and more dense development proposed further back into the site.
Winklebury Way
8.27.20. A primary access (to be approved as part of this outline application) would be formed at the entrance to Winklebury Way. This would involve some off-site highway works to the existing Winklebury Way junction including a filter lane for vehicles turning left. There would also be an increase in width of Roman Road at this point to accommodate a filter lane for vehicles travelling south and turning right into the site, and a filter lane for vehicles travelling north to either continue straight on or turn left into the site.
8.27.21. A new Neighbourhood Park (Central NP) is proposed close to this new junction and whilst not designed in detail at this stage, its location would enable it to be seen as an extension to the Linear Park feature proposed along the eastern boundary with Roman Road.
8.28. Views/Amenity from Public Rights of Way – Footpaths and Bridleways
8.28.1. There are a number of Public Rights of Way (PROWs) which cross the site and which would be affected as a result of the introduction of residential and other development proposed at Manydown. This is because cyclists, riders and walkers currently experience mostly rural and undeveloped views when travelling along these routes.
8.28.2. The section of public footpath which links Roman Road and Worting Wood Farm would be particularly affected both during construction and beyond. This route is used by the existing occupants of Winklebury and currently users experience views of the arable fields.
Green Lane
8.28.3. The Green Lane PROW which links Church Lane in Worting village to Worting Wood. This route is well used but has maintained a rural and undeveloped character with hedgerows and trees forming a canopy in places over the path. There are some less dense parts of the route which currently enable views over the arable fields; when travelling north either westwards towards woodland beyond, or eastwards over the fields towards Roman Road. This route is important not just as a route for walkers and cyclists but also as a landscape and important biodiversity feature and is discussed under criterion (k) of the report. The development would result in this route being cut through for the creation of the Main Street. The Parameter Plans confirm that this route (as well as space on other side of this lane) will be retained and maintained as an important feature as a Green Corridor.
Other Public Rights of Way
8.28.4. Users of the PROW which runs to the south of Worting Wood, skirting the southern boundary and running adjacent to the existing arable fields from Worting Wood Farm to Green Lane would also be affected by the development. When looking across the arable fields towards the residential area of Winklebury and beyond Roman Road, the views will clearly change as a result of the development with built form and associated development replacing the arable fields. The Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan identifies a Green Corridor along most of this route which would assist in softening some of the visual impacts on those using this existing route through the site and this is considered to provide some mitigation. The exact detail of this will be secured as part of the relevant Key Phase Framework following Site Wide Framework submissions.
8.28.5. To the south of the (B3400) there is Public Bridleway and a footpath linking Pack Lane to the south with Worting Road.
8.28.6. There are other PROW and permissive paths which pass through the land proposed to form part of the Country Park. As with the other PROW, the development is likely to increase the number of users of these routes however the change in experience of users of paths within the Country Park would not be as significant as the PROW through the Manydown site.
8.29. Views from the Railway
Existing views for passengers travelling to and from Basingstoke towards Winchester via rail would alter as a result of this development however it is considered that given the speed at which views are experienced, and the relationship between the site and the existing edge of Basingstoke this would not be significant.
8.30. Landscape Buffers
The Design and Access Statement includes reference to the potential design and nature of landscape buffers within the site. The locations of these buffers are proposed to include north of Worting House, Worting Conservation Area, Country Park edge, Roman Road Park and Worting Road Wedge. In relation to Worting, land to the north of Worting House is included and is necessary to ensure an appropriate separation from the Worting House Conservation Area and the retention of the existing mature tree belt along this boundary. The open space parameter plan and the land use parameter plan identify a buffer a minimum 20 metres wide.
8.31. Summary of Landscape Impacts
8.31.1. The introduction of residential development onto the site will change the existing landscape character however a number of mitigation measures are proposed to assist in integrating the Manydown development into the landscape. This includes differing building heights and densities, positioning of built form in the landscape, retention of significant sections of hedging, retention of woodland areas and the introduction of additional planting and open spaces. Whilst these are a positive element to the development scheme it is clear that this scale of development in this location would permanently and significantly change the character of the area.
8.31.2. The Landscape Officer maintains a concern in relation to building storey heights and densities both in relation to certain sensitive boundaries and due to the landform which rises significantly within the site, and at this outline stage there is limited information on how this would be successfully dealt with. As more detailed proposals come forward, it is suggested that more detailed levels drawings are also provided which show sectional details across the site, their existing levels and the proposed levels, as it is assumed that there would be areas where cut and fill, remodelling and levelling may be required to create all the elements of the development proposed. The provision of further details as part of a condition is considered reasonable and has been secured as part of Condition 5(b).
8.31.3. In considering matters of landscape impact, a judgement has to be made which balances the significant change to the character and appearance of the area, the ability of new landscaping to mitigate the identified impacts and the wider public benefits that this development would bring within the context of it being an allocated site for development. In this regard, it is acknowledged that the countryside location is highly valued. The site however is not set within a wholly isolated rural position but within an area that has some notable human influences (e.g. road network, settlements). On site, a significant amount of the defining landscape features of woodland and hedgerow are to be retained and where possible enhanced, with new landscaping across the extent of the site providing a level of mitigation for the development, as well as biodiversity enhancements. This mitigation seeks to be sympathetic to the landscape, its visual amenity and historic features and as such whilst concern in relation to certain elements of the development are maintained by the Landscape Officer, it is considered on balance that the development, with suitable conditions, can be successfully accommodated on this site.
8.31.4. The NPPF advocates a positive and proactive approach to new development, particularly sustainable development which extends beyond simply providing alternative modes of transport to the car. This development provides such opportunities against further economic, environmental and social improvements, despite the landscape impact. It is therefore considered that the development would not have such an overriding harmful impact as to be significantly or demonstrably harmful to the character and appearance of the area, the landscape interests or visual amenity which would enable the Local Planning Authority to justify a reason for refusal against policies EM1 and EM10 and criterion (f) of Policy SS3.10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
SS3.10 (h) Conserve and enhance the architectural and historic significance of the Worting Conservation Area with its listed buildings including Worting House, respecting their setting, and ensuring sufficient mitigation is put in place when required;
8.31.5. The Worting Conservation Area was designated by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council in 1982 with the Worting Conservation Area Appraisal adopted in July, 2003. Worting is a small village located three miles west of central Basingstoke, on the B3400. The boundary of the Conservation Area includes the historic properties clustered around the Church of St Thomas of Canterbury, as well as extending north west and west to encompass the Grade II* Worting House and the Grade II Listed Scrapps Farm.
Main Affected Heritage Assets Worting Conservation Area
Other affected Heritage Assets Worting Park (HCC Registered Historic Park) Approx 14 unlisted buildings, identified as ‘notable’ within the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings including: Worting House Grade II* Stable block to the west of Worting House, Grade II Church of St Thomas of Canterbury, Grade II Hatchetts, Grade II The Old Rectory, Grade II 405 Worting Road, Grade II Nos 411, 413, 415, 417 Worting Road, all Grade II Hillside, Grade II Hillside Stables (Curtilage listed) Barn at Scrapps Hill Farm, Grade II Park Prewett Water Tower White Barrow Scheduled Monument Catterns Crossroads Battle Down Farm Worting Wood Scrapps Hill
8.32. Setting of the Conservation Area
8.32.1. The overall Local Plan allocation within Policy SS3.10 includes parts of the Worting Conservation Area and a number of Listed Buildings, most notably the Grade II* listed Worting House. The application site under this planning application is not within the Worting Consveration Area but abuts its northern boundary and part of its southern boundary adjacent to the southern side of the B3400. On the western side the development is separated by fields to the north of Scrapps Hill Farm (Grade II Listed). There are no listed buildings within the site. The heritage impacts are therefore more related to any impacts on the setting of, in particular, the Worting Conservation Area and the Listed Buildings within it.
8.32.2. Local Planning Authorities have a statutory duty under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses when considering planning applications. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a duty on LPAs to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Specifically Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that:
“In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any functions under or by virtue of any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2)3 , special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.” (emphasis added).
8.32.3. The majority of the site sits outside the Conservation Area. The only element within the Conservation Area is on the B3400 where the “pan handle” element of the Conservation Area Boundary extends westwards. The setting of the Conservation Area as a designated heritage asset is nevertheless an important material consideration that requires careful assessment as set out below.
8.32.4. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 11) and that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of the heritage asset, great weight should be given to the conservation of the asset (paragraph 193).
Assessment of Significance
8.32.5. In considering the impact of development on heritage assets it is important to have a clear understanding of their significance. Specifically paragraph 189 of the NPPF requires that:
“In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.”
8.32.6. The applicant has submitted a Heritage Assessment in Chapter 8 of the ES.
8.32.7. The NPPF goes on to make clear that it is for the Local Planning Authority to ultimately assess significance as part of the decision making on a planning application. Specifically paragraph 190 of the NPPF states:
“Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.”
8.32.8. In identifying the particular significance of heritage assets consideration is given to the applicant’s Heritage Assessment as well as expertise provided in the consultation responses from Historic England (HE) and the Council’s Conservation Officer.
8.32.9. It is clear from the HE response that there is a fundamental disagreement with the applicant’s assessment of the contribution of the setting of Worting Conservation Area to its significance. The applicant’s Heritage Assessment concludes that the CA is “entirely insular”, with limited intervisibility of the setting of the CA from within its boundaries. The applicant’s Heritage Assessment goes on to assert that the key value of the CA is from the diverse group of individual historic buildings throughout the CA.
8.32.10. HE does not agree with the assessment of the CA as being insular. Specifically they state the following (in their response to the August 2018 submission):
“In relation to the Worting Conservation Area, we maintain that the CgMs assessment of the setting of the conservation area and the contribution it makes to the significance of the designated asset is fundamentally flawed and that this leads to a miscalculation of the level of harm that would result from the proposed development. Through denying the importance of the rural setting of Worting the amendments have failed to reduce the level of harm to the conservation area. The CgMs assessment emphasises the ‘insularity’ of Worting and interprets this as an inward-looking quality only. They fail to understand that this insularity is also appreciated from outside the conservation area by seeing the defined settlement within its rural setting. To only assess the impact of the proposed development through a limited number of static views from well within the settlement and to have no regard for the kinetic experience of approaching the village from without or what is experienced as views out of the conservation area from its boundary is inadequate and seriously undermines the validity of the Heritage Report.”
8.32.11. Helpfully setting of a heritage asset is specifically defined within the NPPF at page 71 in the Glossary as follows:
“The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.”
8.32.12. In this regard it is considered that setting of the CA can be as a result of movement to or from within the CA. However, when considering this in the relationship to Worting it is clear that the setting is experienced in a variety of ways throughout the CA.
8.32.13. When approached from the west along the B3400 the character is heavily influenced by a rural sense. There are open fields on either side of the road. The B3400 itself has tall continuous hedgerows on the final approach to Worting creating a sense of enclosure around the road, particularly taking account of the hedgerow, in places, being above the road level on a slightly embanked field edge. However, the road itself is clearly a significant road, carrying large volumes of traffic, such that it does not have the appearance of a quiet country lane on approach to a rural village.
8.32.14. The approach from the east is quite different. The south-eastern corner of the CA is at the point where the B3400 meets Roman Way (the intersection of the two roads is now the new roundabout installed as part of the Worting Farm development to the south). At this point the influence of the western edge of Basingstoke is apparent, with the suburban development edge along Roman Way and the railway bridge across the B3400 when looking east. Looking west the more rural appearance of Worting becomes apparent as the varied collection of buildings fronting onto the B3400 is visible, but this is now also seen in the context of new housing at Worting Farm, which while set back and separated from the edge of Basingstoke, does form part of the context of the view west into Worting.
8.32.15. The range of how the CA is experienced continues within the centre of Worting. Church Lane is a key route through the CA with frequent important views of buildings as defined within the Worting Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA). At the southern end of Church Lane for example, the influence of the B3400 is clear and views of the frontage development on the Southern side of the B3400 creates a more densely populated character than other parts of Church Lane. Moving northwards the experience changes to a far less dense area with large historic buildings in large plots such as Hatchetts and Hillside, with a far more verdant character supported by substantial landscaping and trees. The change in material of Church Lane from tarmac at the southern end, to rough surfacing and eventually a typical mud path reinforces the relatively quick transition from village to village edge and then countryside beyond.
8.32.16. Taking all of the above into account it is considered that the CA is not entirely insular as described in the applicant’s Heritage Assessment. There are parts of the CA experienced from within where views of wider countryside are not possible and conversely where views of the urban edge of Basingstoke are. In parts, particularly on the northern boundary there are glimpsed views through to open fields which would be more readily noticeable during winter months when trees are not in leaf. However, it is also considered that the CA is not exclusively rural in its character. The edges to the north and the western approach do support the rural description but experience of the setting from within the CA and on the eastern edges create a different sense of character.
8.32.17. The second part of paragraph 190 of the NPPF set out above requires that when considering the assessment of significance local planning authorities should use this information to “avoid or minimise” the impact of any part of the proposal on the conservation of the heritage asset. In this regard there are two key areas of the proposed development which have been criticised by HE in their response to the application, namely the impact of the development to the northern edge of the CA and the impact of the development on the western edge of the CA including the impact of the southern access arrangements (roundabout and signalised junction across the B3400) on the western approach.
8.32.18. For both the northern and western edges of the development the Building Heights and Density parameter plan is the most relevant to this issue. The plan under consideration shows 3 storey development, up to 13m in height, at a density of 15-30 dph with a minimum set back of 20m from the northern edge of the CA. The density range in this area is the lowest of those proposed throughout the development. Through extensive discussion with the applicant amended plans were submitted to the application in July 2018. While it is clear that these have not overcome HE’s original concerns they do demonstrate that due consideration has been given to reducing the impact of development in these areas with the following amendments:
Reduction in storey heights by 1m for both 2 and 3 storeys (now 10m and 13m high respectively); Reduction in storey heights for 4 and 5 storeys by 2m (now 15m and 18m respectively); Reduction from 4 to 3 storeys around western edge of Worting Conservation Area and on the southern side of the proposed signalised junction across the B3400.
8.32.19. While it is clear that these have not addressed the HE objections sufficiently it does demonstrate great weight being given to the conservation of the heritage asset at Worting CA. The most significant changes to the Building Heights and Density plans have been around the northern and western boundaries of the CA together with the change to the southern side of the proposed signalised junction across the B3400.
8.32.20. To take this further with regards to minimising impacts the conditions recommended at the end of this report have also been drafted to require particular attention be paid to these areas through the next design stage approvals, ahead of reserved matters applications being submitted. Condition 5 requires the Site Wide Urban Design Framework to specifically have regard to the development edge and relationship with heritage assets and to have a Site Wide Heritage Management Plan. Condition 7 then requires the design codes for Key Phases including those particular areas to demonstrate how the design will have regard to the sensitivity of these edges. In taking this iterative approach to design approval will allow for greater articulation of the final designs to address the issue. For example, on the edge closest to the northern boundary the 20m setback is shown as an arbitrary line. While the approval of the parameter plan through this outline application would allow for development up to within 20m of the CA it does not mean that the final scheme to be decided through eventual reserved matters applications will follow that approach. Indeed, through the design stages to be approved ahead of any reserved matters application it will be possible to request greater details to show how this edge can be dealt with sensitively, for example, by ensuring that a detailed assessment of intervisbility between the tree belt to the site is identified, such that where the intervisibility is at its greatest buildings are pushed back beyond 20m and where there is limited or no intervisibility with the CA this potentially allows for development up to 20m from the boundary.
8.32.21. This approach is also advocated in further annotations to the Building Heights and Density Parameter plans which states that, where masterplanning ahead of reserved matters demonstrates improved design outcomes that a lower density than the ranges quoted can be provided.
Impact of the Development
8.32.22. Paragraph 193 of the NPPF states that:
“When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.”
8.32.23. Policy EM11 (The Historic Environment) of the Local Plan states:
“All development must conserve or enhance the quality of the borough’s heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.
8.32.24. Development proposals which would affect designated or non-designated heritage assets will be permitted where they:
a) Demonstrate a thorough understanding of the significance of the heritage asset and its setting, how this has informed the proposed development, and how the proposal would impact on the asset’s significance. This will be proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset and the potential impact of the proposal; b) Ensure that extensions and/or alterations respect the historic form, setting, fabric and any other aspects that contribute to the significance of the host building; c) Demonstrate a thorough understanding of the significance, character and setting of conservation areas and how this has informed proposals, to achieve high quality new design which is respectful of historic interest and local character; d) Conserve or enhance the quality, distinctiveness and character of heritage assets by ensuring the use of appropriate materials, design and detailing; and e) Retain the significance and character of historic buildings when considering alternative uses and make sensitive use of redundant historic assets.”
8.32.25. The Heritage SPD seeks to support Policy EM11 with further detail on the assessment of impacts on heritage assets.
8.32.26. Western Approach: The approach to Worting from the west along the B3400 will inevitably significantly change. The introduction of the roundabout will have an urbanising impact to a degree but is over the brow of the hill from the main part of Worting Conservation Area. Moving closer to Worting the signalised junction will also have an urbanising impact within the “pan handle” element of the CA. The existing B3400 western approach is two lanes bound by hedgerows which do create a more rural approach and sense of enclosure from the west. The signalised junction would require splaying out to three lanes at the junction with associated traffic islands, white lines to allow for the splays and the signals themselves. The overall width of the junction across the proposed realigned B3400 eastbound would be approximately 14.5m at the stop line (allowing for two eastbound lanes at the junction to accommodate left and right turns, a westbound lane and the associated island for signals) compared to the current width of the B3400 carriageway in this location of approximately 7.5m.
8.32.27. In addition the signalised junction would be the location of one of the local centres, to the north side of the B3400. The applicant has stated that this is to provide some commercial viability to the centre to ensure passing trade is capitalised. In this centre there will be a mix of commercial uses, residential development of 40-60dph with a development edge adjacent to the B3400 on both sides of up to 3 storeys building height. This will clearly reinforce the urbanising impact around the signalised junction as opposed to seeking to regress the development into the site on either side of the road.
8.32.28. The Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan shows areas of strategic open space to either side of the signalised junction - a green buffer to the southern side and an area of biodiversity and landscape features to the north (the north side being shown as a greater width). Given the outline nature of this current planning application the treatment and landscape detailing will require particular attention in these areas in seeking to maximise the opportunities for providing verdant planting and spaces around the signalised junction within the confines of the functional requirements of the junction.
8.32.29. The alignment of the B3400 will change between the roundabout and the signalised junction such that it will differ from the linear approach currently. This will create a more typically suburban approach but the realignment has also provided space for substantial landscaping between the access points, particularly to the south of the roundabout. The detail to be secured through the masterplanning stages ahead of reserved matters applications for the relevant development parcels will need to pay particular attention to these areas as included within Conditions 5 and 7 in the list of recommended conditions.
8.32.30. The western development edge has been reduced to 3 storeys in height from 4 storeys as originally submitted. Taking account of the separation provided by the fields around Scrapps Hill Farm and the landscape buffer on this edge, it is considered that the impact on Worting Conservation Area from views within the CA will be limited.
8.32.31. Northern Boundary: Views of the wider countryside from within the CA northwards are apparent. These are reduced significantly by the substantial tree line such that the views are from relatively short distances and clearly are impacted by leaf drop at particular times of year. The development will be visible from these locations looking northwards and this will inevitably impact on the rural setting of Worting CA to a degree. However, this can be partially mitigated by the recommended condition requiring particular attention to these set backs through the masterplanning process for the relevant key phase and the secondary school development brief. Both HE and the Conservation Officer response recognise the potential for school playing fields to be positioned closest to the CA edge, therefore alleviating the proximity to built development in this location.
8.32.32. Other: From within the central parts of the CA there will be limited visibility of the development although this will change moving north along Green Lane.
8.32.33. Taking the above into account it is considered that the development, when considered as a whole would have some adverse impacts on the setting and therefore character of Worting CA. The degree of harm is considered to be less than substantial with regards to the tests set out in the NPPF. While the assessments of significance differ between the applicant’s Heritage Assessment and the views expressed by HE, both assert that the degree of harm is less than substantial. For the reasons set out above it is considered that less than substantial harm is the correct assessment of the degree of impact and therefore paragraph 196 of the NPPF is relevant, which states:
“Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.”
8.32.34. The weight of the public benefits is assessed in the “Planning Balance” later in this report.
8.33. Setting of Listed Buildings
8.33.1. Criterion (h) requires development within allocation S3.10 to also conserve and enhance the listed buildings within the Worting Conservation Area, respecting their setting, and ensuring sufficient mitigation is put in place when required. Worting House is specifically referenced in the criterion, being the only Grade II* Listed Building within the Conservation Area. In addition however the following covers the impact of development on Listed Buildings both within the Conservation Area (as specifically required by criterion (n)) and outside, consistent with the statutory tests and wider policy context.
8.33.2. The following Listed Buildings have been included within the Heritage Statement submitted with the application:
Worting Park (HCC Registered Historic Park) Approx 14 unlisted buildings, identified as ‘notable’ within the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings Worting House Grade II* Stable block to the west of Worting House, Grade II Church of St Thomas of Canterbury, Grade II Hatchetts, Grade II The Old Rectory, Grade II 405 Worting Road, Grade II Nos 411, 413, 415, 417 Worting Road, all Grade II Hillside, Grade II Hillside Stables (Curtilage listed) Barn at Scrapps Hill Farm, Grade II Primmer , Grade II (outside the Conservation Area and allocation but adjacent to the western boundary of the proposed Country Park) The Old Bakehouse (outside the Conservation Area and allocation but adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed Country Park)
8.33.3. The following assessment of significance and impact is provided in relation to those listed above.
Worting House
8.33.4. As set out above Worting House is the only Grade II* Listed Building in the Conservation Area. With its associated parkland setting Worting House is situated relatively centrally within the Conservation Area. To the west of Worting House is the Coach House which itself is a Grade II Listed Building. As set out in the submitted Heritage Statement the building is late 18th or early 19th century, being of three storeys and with a symmetrical frontage. The significance of Worting House is considered to derive from it being characteristic of its period for a manor house set within a parkland setting on rising land.
8.33.5. The proposed development will not have a direct impact on Worting House in that none of the development is proposed within the parkland surrounding the main building and there is no direct impact on the building itself.
8.33.6. In relation to setting of Worting House it is considered that there will be an awareness of change to the setting by virtue of development to the north of Worting House in particular. As set out above there will be a noticeable change when viewing the development north of the northern boundary of the Worting Conservation Area. This impact will be significantly lessened when viewed from Worting House itself due to the distance from the northern boundary and due to the rise in land up behind Worting House impacting on inter-visibility. At the midpoint (ie, within the parkland itself to the north of Worting House it is considered that the appreciation of development beyond the northern boundary will become more apparent, but not to the extent so as to be harmful to the setting of Worting House itself given the maintenance of the parkland surrounding.
8.33.7. To the west of Worting House the site (at the point of the proposed western centre) is separated by two bands of significant vegetation and Scrapps Hill Farm, which is considered in detail itself below. The intervening land also forms parts of allocation SS3.10. While no development proposals have come in for that part of the allocation at this time it is material that there are elements of the setting of Worting House, outside the current application site that are within the allocation itself. Given the distance and intervening vegetation and buildings it is considered that there is no harmful impact from the area of the site proposed as the western centre on the setting of Worting House.
8.33.8. A secondary access is proposed to the south of the B3400, to the west of the entrance to Worting House. This would not directly impact on views of Worting House up from the B3400, but would be visible when viewing west along the B3400. As explained elsewhere in this report this secondary access was originally proposed in detail as a T-junction but has subsequently been downgraded to being shown without details for approval at this stage to allow further discussions within the owners of Worting House regarding access to that part of the allocation. The proposal for a junction on the southern side of the B3400 does not create a harmful impact on the setting of Worting House.
Listed Buildings in Church Lane
8.33.9. Church Lane contains Hillside, Hatchetts, The Old Rectory and the Church of St. Thomas’ of Canterbury, all of which are Grade II Listed Buildings. The submitted Heritage Statement sets out that these buildings have aesthetic value in their own right through their architectural appearance and detail. In the case of the Church of St Thomas of Canterbury there is also communal value in being a place of importance for the village of Worting in terms of its function.
8.33.10. The proposed development will have no direct impact on these Listed Buildings. In relation to the setting of the Listed Buildings, as set out above in relation to the impact on the Conservation Area, it is considered that inter-visibility between Church Lane and the site is extremely limited. It will be possible to have a sense of change to the B3400 through the proposed access points when viewed from the southern end of Church Lane looking west, but this in itself is not considered to be harmful to the setting of these buildings.
Listed Buildings in Wotton St Lawrence
8.33.11. The application site boundary includes the proposed Country Park. On this basis the site is adjacent to the southern boundary of The Old Bakehouse, to the north of the proposed Country Park, and to the immediate east of Primmers which sits on the west side of Wotton One Mile. Both of these properties are Grade II Listed. The Heritage Statement submitted with the application acknowledges that the character of the adjoining land will change from rural to managed parkland of the proposed Country Park but concludes that this in itself will not be harmful to the setting of these two buildings. It is considered that this is an appropriate conclusion.
Scrapps Hill Farm
8.33.12. Scrapps Hill Farm is positioned within allocation SS3.10 and is situated between Worting House and the proposed western centre. The building itself is a Grade II Listed barn. Its original functional relationship with the site has been lost due to it no longer being used for agricultural purposes. The barn is separated by approximately 100m to the western edge of the site where the proposed western centre would be located with an established hedgerow between. While it there is clearly no direct impact on the barn the proposed density and height of buildings indicated in the Building Heights and Density Parameter Plan are such that the sense of development on adjoining fields will be perceivable from this location. In addition the alterations to the B3400 and in particular the signalised crossing proposed across the B3400 would be readily appreciable from Scrapps Hill Farm.
8.33.13. In the current situation views from Scrapps Hill west and north are to established vegetation boundaries with fields beyond. The new development will therefore alter this and change the type of land uses that would otherwise have been associated with the original use of the building. Given the scale of the development proposed in this location through the parameter plans and intended location of the western centre it is considered that the development would be detrimental to the setting of this listed building, consistent with the views expressed by the Conservation Officer. However, taking into account the very changed nature of the building to alternative uses and the aforementioned distances it is considered that the impact would be harmful to the setting of the Listed Building but that this would be less than substantial harm.
8.34. Setting of the Scheduled Monuments
White Barrow Scheduled Monument
8.34.1. White Barrow is located to the south of Mother’s Copse and is designated as a Scheduled Monument. It is located outside of but between two parts of the application site. To the east is land proposed to be developed to the south of the B3400. To the west is land proposed for ecological mitigation. The Scheduled Monument consists of a Bronze Age burial mound 42 metres in diameter and approximately 2 metres high. The site is not particularly visible at the present time due to the number of young trees which are growing on the mound. The Archaelogical Assessment supporting the application confirms that there are significant number of possible other Bronze Age barrows and ring ditches recorded in the area and this is an indication that there is a high likelihood of further barrows and ring ditches being present within the site.
8.34.2. The Parameter Plans indicate that residential development would sit directly to the east of this monument.
8.34.3. Historic England (HE) maintain concerns about the impact on the setting of this scheduled monument. The applicant’s supporting documents assess the predicted harm as, “a substantial adverse significance of effect”. Historic England consider that this impact is, “very high, at the top end of less than substantial”. There is some existing vegetation between this part of the development site and White Barrow which the applicants proposes to strengthen to reduce the visual impact of the proposed development on this historic feature. HE however considers that this mitigation would in itself be harmful as it would block existing open views that contribute to the significance of the scheduled monument. It is considered that the development would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the White Barrow Scheduled Ancient Monument and its significance as an historic monument within a rural setting.
8.34.4. Paragraph 190 of the NPPF requires that harm to heritage assets be minimised with ‘great weight’ given to the conservation of heritage assets, irrespective of the level of harm. Paragraph 194 requires that any harm be convincingly justified.
8.34.5. The applicant has advised that this mitigation planting is also proposed as part of the package to ensure long-term favourable conservation status of European Protected Species, including hazel dormice, barbastelle and horseshoe bats and would link Mother’s Copse with Cow Down Copse. This is seen as a positive addition to the existing planting on site. Whilst this provides some context for the reasons for this additional planting, Historic England do not consider that sufficient explanation has been provided as to why ecological considerations should outweigh heritage considerations and conclude that this development as currently shown on the parameter plans would result in ‘serious harm’ to White Barrow.
8.34.6. A previous response to the development from Historic England advised that, “Should outline planning consent be granted, we would wish to work with the applicant on the detailed proposals to achieve a more integrated solution to ecological and heritage issues that results in the least possible harm or in benefit to, the scheduled monument. Any remaining harm will need to be considered by yourselves as part of the overall balancing exercise against public benefit (NPPF para.196).”
8.34.7. The latest response confirms that HE are aware of the approach post outline including the Site Wide Framework and Key Phase Framework being secured to allow further refinement of the details shown on the parameter plans however their concerns remain with the parameter plans as proposed for approval. The applicant has confirmed that they seek to develop a positive heritage agenda as part of the detailed design process and it is considered that as part of the detailed design stages further consideration can be given to the best approach for handling this sensitive edge.
Battle Down Farm
8.34.8. Battle Down Farm is located approximately 400m to the south of the site, to the south of Pack Lane. There are extensive crop marks to the east of Battle Down Farm which represents at least one Iron Age banjo enclosure and several other smaller enclosures. The supporting Archaeological Assessment confirms that it is significant due to the extensive survival archaeological features associated with a concentrated period of activity during the iron age. As a result of intensive modern agricultural practices, all above ground features have been ploughed out.
8.34.9. It is considered that whilst an appreciation of built form might be made when looking towards Manydown from this point, this would be similar to those of the existing western edge of Basingstoke. Historic England has confirmed that they are content with the treatment set out in the ES and with the landscaping proposals on the edge of the development near to this monument.
Non-designated Heritage Assets
8.34.10. The Archaeological Assessment undertaken by the applicant as part of the ES included trial trenching of Catterns Crossroads, Worting Wood and Scrapps Hill. This established that these three sites are not nationally important and do not present an overriding archaeological constraint. Catterns Crossroads which is located in the northern part of the site was a scheduled monument but has now been removed from the schedule of monuments.
8.34.11. The development of Manydown will clearly have an impact on the setting of these undesignated heritage assets and the NPPF sets out that the significance of a non-designated heritage assets should be taken into account in determining the application and in weighing applications that directly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset (paragraph 135). Local Plan Policy EM11 states that development must preserve or enhance the quality of the borough's heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.
8.34.12. Crop marks were found at Worting Wood and to the south of Worting Road and on the basis of their significance along with local and national planning policy, a programme of archaeological mitigation or selective preservation is considered appropriate. The conclusion of the archaeological assessment is that subject to careful masterplanning and an appropriate programme of archaeological mitigation, there appears to be no over-riding area constraints to the proposed development of the site, which is considered to be an appropriate conclusion on this particular element. Planning conditions including the securing of a Heritage Management Plan to set out how the roll out of evaluation, mitigation, excavation, community engagement, publication and green infrastructure in relation to phases and to the significant known archaeological assets impacted are necessary and have been secured under Condition 5 (Site Wide Framework), in order to bring clarity to the future Key Phase and reserved matters submissions.
8.34.13. The Heritage Statement submitted with the application references the Park Prewett Water Tower to the north of Basingstoke. Long range views of this are available from various locations in and around the town. While it can be seen within the context of Manydown from wider views, the distance between the sites and the fact that Park Prewett itself is highly developed, together with intervening development is such that there is no adverse impact on this feature.
8.35. Balance in Relation to Heritage Harm
8.35.1. As set out above it is considered that there would be harm caused to the Conservation Area, to the setting of Worting House, to the setting of Scrapps Hill Farm and the setting of White Barrow Scheduled Monument. All are considered to be less than substantial harm in regards to the tests set out in the NPPF. This is concluded having regard to established case law considering substantial harm as impacts that “have such a serious impact on the significance of the asset that its significance was either vitiated altogether or very much reduced” (Bedford Borough Council v. SSCLG and Nuon UK Ltd [2012]). The objections from Historic England and Conservation Officer do not suggest that any part of the development would result in substantial harm.
8.35.2. As required by paragraph 196 of the Framework where development would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
8.35.3. In terms of the public benefits of the proposal the development will deliver housing as the council’s largest residential allocation. This would be against a current shortfall in five year housing land supply (4.89 years) making the need for housing more acute. Of this 40% would be affordable housing, equating to up to 1,408 units against the current housing need in the Borough.
8.35.4. The proposal will lead to economic benefits, related to both an extensive construction period but also in relation to longer term jobs in the two local centres, schools and other commercial/community uses proposed. In addition the occupiers of the dwellings will generate council tax income and provide expenditure into the local economy.
8.35.5. The development will provide a net gain in biodiversity terms and make provision for the Country Park beyond the normal open space requirements. Other elements of the scheme such as the on site open space, SUDs to provide suitable drainage solutions and landscaping are considered to be matters that are simply required to make the development acceptable and as such do not weigh significantly in the balance.
8.35.6. Taking the above into account it is considered that the public benefits do outweigh the harm identified to the heritage assets, whether balanced on an individual basis or cumulatively, in accordance with paragraph 196 of the NPPF. Having regard to the requirements of Section 66 and 72 of The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 the proposal is therefore considered acceptable in this regard and in accordance with Policy EM11 and SS3.10 of the Local Plan.
SS3.10 (i) Retain the separate identity and character of Wootton St Lawrence and Oakley and restrict coalescence between the new development and these villages. The development will also retain the separate identity and character of Worting and Winklebury, including conserving the ancient boundary of Roman Road as a green boundary;
8.35.7. The Parameter Plans supporting this application fix 101ha of land for the creation of a Country Park in the western part of the site.
8.36. Wootton St Lawrence and Oakley
8.36.1. Policy EM2 of the Local Plan identifies a Strategic Gap between Basingstoke and Oakley. This designation is to prevent coalescence of built up areas and to maintain the separate identity of settlements and the generally open and undeveloped nature will be protected. A clear gap between settlements helps maintain a sense of place for both residents of, and visitors to, the settlements on either side of the gaps. When travelling through a strategic gap (by all modes of transport) a traveller should have a clear sense of having left the first settlement, having travelled through an undeveloped area and then entered the second settlement.
8.36.2. The Wootton St Lawrence Neighbourhood Plan references a Local Gap (Policy WSL 1) which is designed to protect the setting of the village. The policy requires development within this area to not diminish the physical and/or visual separation of the village from the Manydown development area or harm the setting of Wootton St Lawrence. The associated map confirms this gap includes a section of the Country Park. The supporting text confirms that the aim of this policy is to be complementary to the Country Park allocation in the Local Plan, aiming to secure the character is maintained with this part used for informal recreational uses.
8.36.3. Wootton St Lawrence Parish Council has commented that through the Neighbourhood Plan, residents of Wootton St Lawrence and Ramsdell requested that the villages retain their countryside character and that the new Country Park is well managed and accessible without the area losing its farming background.
8.37. Worting and Winklebury
8.37.1. The Land Use Parameter Plan shows the approximate location of the zone for residential built development and associated uses. In urban design terms, consideration needs to be given to how well the location of the housing and other built uses relates to the surrounding settlements as required by Policy SS3.10(i) of the Local Plan which also requires the development to retain the separate identity and character of Worting and Winklebury, including conserving the ancient boundary of the Roman Road as a green boundary”.
8.37.2. The green corridor (linear park) that is proposed along the Roman Road is supported by the Landscape Team as it provides the opportunity for an attractive setting and edge as well as providing important landscape structure and connectivity. The supporting Landscape Strategy confirms that this will be planted to allow permeability and views between the site and Roman Road/Winklebury which is welcomed.
8.37.3. The provision of a distinctive form of public space along the majority of the length of this section of Roman Road would aid the separation of character areas from Winklebury, but while also maintaining an openness to the development when approached from Winklebury.
8.37.4. Taking all of the above into account it is considered that the development as a whole within the scope of the overall allocation would meet criterion (i) of Policy SS3.10.
SS3.10 (j) Provide for the retention and careful management of any important archaeological remains, within and adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to their significance;
8.38. Archaeology
8.38.1. The landscape in which the Manydown development site sits is rich in archaeological remains and the impact of the proposed development on archaeological remains is a material consideration. The impact on the setting of scheduled monuments is considered in criterion (h).
8.38.2. There are six scheduled monuments within 1 kilometre of the Site; a bronze age barrow located between the site and Oakley to the southwest, crop marks at Battle Down, a hill fort in Winklebury, a cemetery near South Ham and two monuments to the north of the A339. In addition to these off-site monuments, Wootton St Lawrence is considered to be an Area of High Archaeological Potential.
8.38.3. The ES confirms that the impacts to archaeology will be limited to the construction phase of the development, “Significant effects have been predicted for areas of the site known to have evidence of Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman remains in advance of mitigation. Where previous assessment of these areas has established their archaeological interest, a programme of archaeological excavation and recording will be undertaken prior to construction works and with this mitigation the impacts to these areas would not be significant. Construction works in other areas of the site have the potential to encounter hitherto unknown archaeology and a programme of archaeological fieldwalking and trial trenching is proposed to determine the presence or absence of archaeological remains on the site. Where further remains are encountered, excavation and recording will take place prior to construction.”
8.38.4. Until recently, the Scheduled Monument at Catterns Crossroads, which is in the northern part of the site, was considered as an overriding archaeological site (being nationally important) and two other archaeological sites were regarded as potentially so, Worting Wood and Scrapps Hill. All three were subject to a targeted evaluation by trial trenching. This has established that these three sites are not nationally important and do not present an overriding archaeological constraint, but might be dealt with by preservation within the master plan or by archaeological excavation. Catterns Crossroads has now been removed from the national list of Schedule of Monuments.
8.38.5. The NPPF places the emphasis on understanding and conserving the significance of heritage assets as part of sustainable development. BDBC Local Plan Policy EM11 seeks to secure that development converses or enhances the quality of the borough’s heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.
8.38.6. The HCC Archaeologist has assessed the cultural heritage information supporting the application. This confirms that the trial trenching was targeted with the help of the results of an extensive geophysical survey which will have identified the key substantive archaeological sites within this landscape. The County Archaeologist has drawn attention to the DBA which indicates that whilst the targeted trenching has identified that the principle archaeological sites do not represent an overriding constraint, the wider development has the potential to include as yet unrecorded archaeological sites (para 4.12.7), the impact on which will need to be addressed and that in consequence further stages of field walking and trial trenching will be needed (DBA para 6.4, para 6.5). These are planned post determination and have been secured by condition. The County Archaeologist has confirmed that in view of the extensive nature of the development, the rich archaeological landscape and the potential archaeological burden which might be invoked, such provision will need to be mature and extensive.
8.38.7. The submitted information confirms that subject to careful master planning and an appropriate archaeological mitigation programme there appears to be no overriding archaeological area constraints to the proposed development of the site. The County Archaeologist has recommended that the archaeological issues raised will need to be secured as the development proceeds. The next stages of archaeological evaluation of the development area, beyond the existing targeted trenching will need to be secured to include field walking and wider scale trial trenching. It is recommended that archaeological conditions are attached to any planning permission to secure the archaeological mitigation by excavation and recording of the impacts of development on the known archaeological sites and those additional archaeological sites revealed by the proposed archaeological evaluation. A further condition (Condition 14) to secure the full reporting and publication of the archaeological results to inform the present and future community of the heritage associated with the site is also required. It is considered that subject to these appropriate conditions the development would accord with Policy EM11 and criterion (j) of Policy SS3.10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the NPPF.
8.38.8. The County Archaeologist has however raised concern at the absence within what has been submitted in support of this application of a positive heritage agenda with regard to how the archaeological value in this landscape might be accommodated within the development. This is described as being in relation to matters such as the presentation of archaeological sites within open space where access and education might be achievable, community involvement or engagement during archaeological projects, future education opportunities for example at the Country Park or along the line of the Roman Road. Another example might be whether the archaeological publication of results will manifest themselves in a way that can be accessed with by the local community and the future community of the Manydown area. The County Archaeologist recommends that an archaeological condition be attached to any planning permission to secure a positive programme of community engagement with heritage opportunities during and development and within the green infrastructure of the site and this is considered reasonable and necessary and is secured within Condition 5(j).
SS3.10 (k) Avoid or mitigate the direct and indirect adverse impacts on key species and habitats, including rare arable flora and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation within and adjacent to the site. Where this is proved not to be possible, mitigation and compensation for the loss will be required to ensure a net gain in biodiversity. Opportunities will be taken to secure the creation and management of linkages between existing woodlands;
8.39. Existing Features
8.39.1. The Manydown application site is known to support a number of species and habitats of significant biodiversity interest including rare arable flora, farmland birds (including skylarks), dormice, rare species of bats, ancient woodlands and species rich hedgerows.
8.39.2. There are four locally designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) within the site and two adjacent to the site. One of the SINCs (Green Lane) was designated during the consideration of this application. The ES confirms that the site is also considered to offer county value for invertebrates. Wootton Copse and Worting Wood include areas of ancient semi-natural woodland and Marvel Row Copse includes a significant element of ancient woodland and are located within the proposed Country Park. Mothers Copse also a SINC, sits outside of the site, adjacent to the southwest boundary and also includes a significant element of ancient woodland. Lambs Field SINC, designated for the presence of agriculturally unimproved neutral/calcareous grassland is to the east of the site, close to Worting village, the church, and the southern end of Green Lane.
8.39.3. The NPPF states that when determining planning applications, LPA’s should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity and opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged. The Local Plan acknowledges that to deliver an appropriate number of houses in the Borough, development for housing sites may need to come forward on greenfield sites such as Manydown.
8.39.4. Policies EM4 Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation, criterion (k) of Policy SS3.10 and the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees SPD also seek to enhance biodiversity. More specifically to the site,the Manydown SPD Development Principle 4d (Ecological Enhancement) sets out the design and layout of the development should be informed by the important biodiversity features of the site. It should aim to retain and enhance key habitat features, enhance landscape corridors, and provide protection to key species.
8.40. Green Lane SINC
8.40.1. The Green Lane SINC runs in a north/south direction from the Lambs Field SINC on the north eastern edge of Worting village in the south up to Worting Wood SINC in the north. The Principal Access and Movement Parameter Plan indicates that the proposed development would cut through part of this feature to enable a ‘primary street zone (Main Street)’ linking the primary access on the B3400 to the primary access to the A339. The parameter plan proposes a narrower width of a 30m corridor for provision of Main Street at this point.
8.40.2. There has been some differing opinions between the applicant’s ecologist and the BDBC Biodiversity Officer with regard to Green Lane and its characteristics of ancient woodland. Both are in agreement that a significant adverse impact is predicted as a result of the removal of a section of the existing hedgerow and woodland vegetation and the fragmentation that would occur. However there has been some debate as to whether Green Lane comprises of ancient woodland. The NPPF defines ancient woodland as, “An area that has been wooded continuously since at least 1600AD. It includes ancient semi-natural woodland and plantations on ancient woodland sites”. Natural England and Forestry Commission have confirmed that ‘wooded continuously’ does not mean there has been a continuous tree cover across the whole site and not all trees in the woodland have to be old.
8.40.3. The Arboricultural Assessment supporting the application indicates that the trees on the Green Lane date from 1900 and do not include veteran trees. Notwithstanding the submitted evidence that there are no veteran trees nor evidence to confirm that the lane has been wooded continuously since at least 1600AD, the Green Lane is acknowledged well used feature and considered important from both the ecological and historic landscape perspective and does support a number of woodland indicator species. The Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC) has surveyed the lane and identified both woodland and scrub type plants with 14 ancient woodland indicator species. These were not recorded by the applicant during their surveys of the site. The applicant considers that Green Lane is an ‘important hedgerow’ rather than its current designation under 1A Ancient Woodland criteria. There is agreement that the land is a feature of County value that is known to support dormice, bats and invertebrates.
8.40.4. Nevertheless as there is no definitive position on whether the Green Lane comprises ancient woodland it is prudent to assess the loss within the context of the NPPF requirements. Paragraph 175 criterion c) of the NPPF confirms that, “development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists.” The Manydown site is an allocated site within the Local Plan for large scale housing development and is necessary in order for the Council to achieve a five year housing land supply. There are no other sites which are capable of fulfilling this role within the plan period.
8.40.5. It is acknowledged that Local Plan Policy SS3.10 criterion m) requires the Manydown development to include, “provision of a road through the land allocated for housing, from the A330 to the B3400..” This is also reflected in the principles set out in the Manydown Development Brief SPD. The siting of the Green Lane precludes this connectivity from occurring without creating a break at some point along its length which would result in the loss of a part of the Green Lane. The Principal Access and Movement Parameter Plan proposes a maximum width of 30 metres for the break in Green Lane. This is significantly narrower than that proposed for the remainder of the route and confirms that the loss has been minimised to that necessary to provide the suitable connectivity through the wider site to enable the Manydown development to come forward. The Development will also deliver policy compliant affordable housing provision and a range of community benefits including a Country Park. Given the importance of the allocation to the Council's 5 year housing supply need, the fact that this is an allocated site within the Development Plan and the public benefits which the development will deliver, it is considered that these considerations constitute wholly exceptional circumstances which significantly weigh in favour of the Development.
8.40.6. Notwithstanding this conclusion, the proposals are supported by a range of suitable compensation measures. The ES supporting the application also sets out a range of measures to mitigate the impacts on Green Lane. In addition to the size of the break being minimised, important vegetation and ground flora removed from this section would be translocated adjacent to the lane to contribute to creating a central corridor including Green Lane of 55m. The applicant has confirmed that to compensate for the loss and/or disruption to the use of Green Lane as a wildlife corridor, they would plant alternative strategic wildlife corridors to facilitate the movement of species around the wider development site. The approach is supported under criterion k) of Policy SS3.10 which requires mitigation and compensation for any direct and indirect adverse impacts on key species and habitats including SINCs within the site. Policy EM4 provides the framework for conserving and enhancing biodiversity assets. In certain circumstances it allows for development that results in a loss or deterioration of a key habitat type or SINC if it has been adequately demonstrated that it mitigates harm to biodiversity and it has been clearly demonstrated that there is an overriding public need for the development.
8.40.7. The Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan shows a corridor providing ecological and landscape features on the western boundary of the site, adjacent to the lane known as Wootton One Mile. The corridor provides different elements with a 15-20m wide link from the B3400 boundary to Wootton St Lawrence and on the eastern edge a 5-10m wide feature providing a buffer between the residential development proposed on this western edge of the site.
8.40.8. During the consideration of this development, a planning application was submitted to the LPA under 19/02649/FUL for 4.5 ha of advanced planting to provide new habitat for ecological and landscape mitigation. This has been approved and provides an alternative option for the developer to bring forward. This approach has been considered within the ES Chapter on Ecology and Nature Conservation and it is concluded that either could be successfully brought forward and can be secured as part of the s106.
8.40.9. MSD12A: ES Chapter 9 Ecology and Nature Conservation and the December 2019 update concludes that while the small loss of up to 30m in the Green Lane SINC is unavoidable, taking Primary Mitigation measures into consideration, which also include significant additional connectivity measures between other SINC designations, this loss within the Green Lane SINC would not result in a significant adverse impact upon the local SINC network as a whole. It is considered that the requirements of the NPPF and Local Plan Policy are satisfied in relation to the impacts on the Green Lane.
8.41. Other SINCs within the site
8.41.1. Three Ancient Woodland SINCs are to be incorporated within the proposed Country Park site; Marvel Row and New Plantation, Wootton Copse and Worting Wood. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has raised concerns about the indirect impacts of the development on these habitats as a result of public access. It is relevant that there is already public access along footpaths through woodland however it is likely that the amount of public usage of these routes would increase as a result of the development. The applicant has acknowledged that the development including the Country Park would potentially impact on the woodlands and this has been reflected in the supporting Biodiversity Metric. DEFRA guidance on Biodiversity Metric states that normally ancient woodland habitat should not be included in such metrics because they are an irreplaceable habitat. In this instance however, the development would not result in their loss and the metric is being used to calculate the indirect impacts resulting from increased usage such as dog walking within these areas. This is considered an appropriate method to ensure that the impacts are considered and accounted for and is agreed by the BDBC Biodiversity Officer.
8.41.2. As set out in the biodiversity metric the Country Park has ecological value in relation to demonstrating an overall net gain for the development (it being part of the application site). This valuable resource needs to be balanced against the policy requirement for the Country Park (and therefore associated access) which is recognised in part by criterion a) of the Manydown Development Principle 4(g) which states:
“a) Areas of parkland, grassland and woodland which protect and enhance the biodiversity and landscape value of the Park whilst improving public accessibility.”
8.41.3. The aforementioned Country Park Development Brief to be secured at the Site Wide Framework stage needs to articulate how the phasing, planned access (or restriction to access as necessary), management and design principles of the Country Park provision will be achieved in balancing the potentially competing requirements of public access to the Country Park alongside protection and/or enhancement of existing ecological features. As such this will need to come forward alongside the Site Wide Ecological Mitigation and Management Strategy. This document will need to set out how, based on the biodiversity information assessed as part of this planning application, the principle of biodiversity net gain will be achieved throughout the development, with the Country Park being a key element of this approach.
8.41.4. Natural England has responded in relation to this matter and confirmed that the proposal to provide a Woodland Management Plan (WMP) for the site is welcomed and this is to be secured by condition 11. The condition requires that such a plan would detail measures, including appropriately sized buffer zones, to protect and enhance all ancient woodlands affected by the proposed development with details of long term funding, implementation and management, and to be agreed with relevant stakeholders prior to the implementation of any key phase.
8.42. Ancient Woodland
8.42.1. There are three Ancient Woodland SINCs on site to be fully incorporated within the proposed Country Park for the site; namely Marvel Row and New Plantation SINC, Wootton Copse SINC and Worting Wood SINC. Whilst none of these areas are proposed to be lost the BDBC Biodiversity Officer has advised that, “Given the relatively small size of each of the woodlands, the number of houses to be built and the inclusion of the woodlands within an area for public access it is considered the woodland SINCs on site will suffer from indirect impacts due to increased public pressure as a result of the development.” It is also relevant that the indirect impacts have been acknowledged by the applicant and reflected in the Biodiversity Metric which allows such impacts to be accounted for. As described above suitable conditions are recommended to control/manage issues such as access to and protection of these features
8.42.2. Standing Advice for Ancient Woodland produced by the Forestry Commission and Natural England in October 2014 and last updated in November 2018 takes account of the NPPF. The UK Biodiversity Action Plan and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) acknowledges the importance of providing a buffer between woodland and development and offers the following advice for suggested conditions if LPA’s are minded to approve a scheme that has an impact on ancient woodland:
1. Development close to, though not directly involving destruction of an ancient woodland can nevertheless be damaging to the site. Whilst development should be kept as far as possible from ancient woodland, a minimum buffer of at least 15 metres in width should be maintained between the ancient woodland and the development boundary. 2. Management plan for the woodland and identified wildlife features (such as hedgerows etc) to ensure long term viability. This should be secured in a Section106 agreement to provide long term security. 3. Connectivity of woodland can be maintained (including maintenance and enhancement of hedgerows, copses) and then included in the Section 106. 4. The provision of interpretive material to inform new residents of the importance of ancient woodland. 5. Mechanisms for the control of pollution/maintenance of hydrology to be secured as appropriate. 6. Lighting should also be designed to face away from woodland and minimise light spill onto the woodland and woodland edge.
8.42.3. The other trees including veteran trees that are located within the site but outside of these woodland areas are considered later within the report.
8.43. Rare Arable Flora
The application is supported by details of a rare arable flora survey undertaken in 2016 which confirms the site continues to be of national importance for these species and the field margins on site are a key habitat type. The flora is located in field margins as well as within parts of the wider Manydown estate. One of the fields known as ‘Severalls’ is identified and is of County importance. The ES confirms that primary mitigation will seek to retain this field margin as part of the detailed design coming forward following any grant of outline planning permission but have also considered their loss as part of the impact assessment to ensure that the ES is robust in this regard. The application is supported by a Farmland Wildlife Mitigation Framework which is intended to ensure that overall there would be no net loss in the number of rare arable species present or retained. New arable margins would also be created as a result of the Farmland Wildlife and Pollinator Biodiversity Management Plan secured under condition 7(q)(5) and condition 17.
8.44. Skylarks
The ES confirms that a total of 22 skylark territories are to be lost as a result of the proposed development. A territory comprises of two birds. If the separate advance planting application (Ref 19/02649/FUL) were implemented in association with this development this number would increase to 24 territories. Whilst there is land within the control of the (blue land), this is not sufficient for the amount of territories required. Following discussions between the applicant, the Biodiversity Officer and Natural England, a financial contribution towards off-site provision is being secured as part of the s106 and discussions are continuing over whether this would be towards skylarks or farmland bird conservation as a more general benefit.
8.45. Dormice
8.45.1. Surveying of the site as part the ES submission confirmed presence of Dormice at four of the seven survey sites; Marvel Row Copse, Mother’s Copse, Cow Down Copse and St John’s Copse. The lack of evidence when surveying outside of these areas does not indicate an absence of species and Wootton Copse and Worting Wood and the ES considers all seven survey sites as though Dormice were recorded there under the precautionary approach. It has been estimated within the ES that approximately 10,077m of hedgerow within the site are likely to support Dormice for either breeding, nesting, feeding and/or dispersal. The surveying has concluded that it could be assumed that the site could support at least 160 adults and potentially up to 350 adults.
8.45.2. The proposal will have a significant impact on Dormice habitat with 81% of the available hedgerow resource within the site being impacted by the development. Although the woodlands are not directly affected by the development, Marvel Row Copse, Wootton Copse and Worting Wood will be incorporated into the proposed Country Park and are likely to suffer degradation or disturbance due to increased public pressure. In order to reduce any impacts the management of the Country Park and all woodland areas will be considered at Site Wide level which will include access management across the site. There is also a known population of Dormice at Worting Farm and Worting Manor and to the south of Worting Road and the mitigation strategy needs to consider these populations as part of the overall approach for the site.
8.45.3. It is acknowledged that comments have been made in letters of representation from local wildlife groups and other members of the public with regard to the importance of maintaining habitat and wildlife connectivity. Suggestions for achieving this successfully have included the provision of culverts and green bridges to allow wildlife to bridge over or under roads. The application does include the provision of significant green corridors and includes opportunities for connectivity to be maintained across the site. Whilst it is clear that some fragmentation of existing networks would occur it is considered that the potential strategy included within the submitted Dormouse Ecological Technical report is appropriate. This includes a mitigation planting strategy for the site including new woodland and hedgerow planting and potential translocation of species rich native hedgerows, reduction in intensity of hedgerow management for all hedgerows retained and improve existing species rich hedgerows to create continuous routes along the west and north boundaries of the site. Following any grant of outline planning permission a Site Wide Ecological Mitigation and Management Strategy will inform the approach for the Key Phase and subsequent reserved matters applications.
8.45.4. The LPA also has a duty to address the three tests contained in the EU Habitats Directive and UK Habitat Regulations when determining planning applications affecting European Protected Species. These are:
1. the consented operation must be for ‘preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment’; (Regulation 53(2)(e)). 2. there must be ‘no satisfactory alternative’ (Regulation 53(9)(a)); 3. the action authorised ‘will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range’ (Regulation 53(9)(b)
8.45.5. Page 13 of the submitted Protected Species Mitigation Framework describes the mitigation measures that will be taken in terms of the dormouse population present on site so that the action authorised ‘will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range’ in order to meet Reg 53(9)(b) of the Habitat Regulations. In addition the site is an allocated site and it is considered that bringing the site forward for this development which includes housing, schools and community centres is considered to represent sustainable development and are grounds for overriding public interest.
8.45.6. A European Protected Species (EPS) licence will be required for the proposed development in respect of Dormice. Habitat and species mitigation measures appropriate to ensure that no harm befalls individuals and that the population size, natural range and viability are not impaired will need to be implemented under the EPS licence, prior to construction works (including vegetation or other site clearance measures) commencing.
8.46. Bats
8.46.1. Bat Surveys have been carried out as part of the ES to provide a baseline to identify likely impacts on bats roosts, to determine the likely ability of local bats to 8.46.2. commute through and forage within the local landscape and to determine appropriate mitigation and monitoring following any grant of outline permission.
8.46.3. The only buildings within the site are at Worting Wood Farm which comprises of six buildings. These buildings were inspected internally and externally and the three dwellings outside of the application site boundary were also inspected externally. One of the buildings within the site was seen to have brown long- eared bats entering or leaving it.
8.46.4. A brown long-eared bat maternity roost has been confirmed in the farm house at Worting Wood Farm. This is within the part of the site to form the Country Park. No details of how this element of the development would come forward have been provided as part of the outline submission however a ‘Country Park Visitor Hub’ has been referred to. The ES provides recommendations that, “in the absence of demonstrable evidence which concludes there is no satisfactory alternative to the demolition of the farmhouse (building C), it must be assumed that the farmhouse will be retained and the brown long-eared maternity roost will therefore be maintained in situ”. The conclusions in relation to this are noted. If the building is to be modified or refurbished as part of future development proposals then the submission on any relevant phase should include detailed designs to ensure that existing roost conditions are maintained. It should be noted that a European Proctected Species (EPS) licence would also be required in respect of these bats unless the maternity roost is left unmodified.
8.46.5. The wider site was also assessed for the likelihood of tree roosts. Four trees at Worting Wood Farm were confirmed to have high or moderate suitability for roosting however nocturnal surveys undertaken did not identify the presence of roosts.
8.46.6. In addition to the six (at least) species recorded during transect surveys, static remote monitoring recorded at least nine species – common, soprano and Nathusius’ pipistrelles, barbastelle, Myotis species, brown long-eared bat, noctule, serotine and greater horseshoe bat (the latter only one occasion).
8.46.7. Whilst bat activity was recorded across the site, the greatest concentration of bats were recorded in the north and west of the site; the north edge of Marvel Row and New Plantation and along the landscape corridor between Marvel Row and New Plantation, Wootton Copse and Worting Wood. The Green Lane was also found to be an important feature for bat foraging and commuting, particularly for barbastelles.
8.46.8. Woodland transect surveys suggest Barbastelle bat tree roosts within Marvel Row and New Plantation and Worting Wood. Other surveying methods also recorded in smaller numbers the presence of Greater Horseshoe bats and Brown long eared bats as well as those found during the transect surveys.
8.46.9. Given the timescales involved since the Outline submission was made, the ES confirms that it is also necessary to secure repeat various bat surveys to support the Country Park Development Brief and prior to Reserved Matters application being submitted. A number of planning conditions relating to biodiversity are also secured including a Site Wide Ecological Mitigation and Management Strategy (condition 5), Biodiversity Mitigation and Management Plan (condition 5, 7 and 17), Construction Environmental Management Plan (biodiversity) (condition 5, 7 and 10), and Lighting Design Strategy for Light-Sensitive Biodiversity (condition number 42).
8.47. Badgers
A Protected Species Mitigation Framework has been submitted to provide further information in relation to mitigation and connectivity measures for species including badgers. Seven social group main setts have been identified on the site. A condition requiring a Biodiversity Mitigation and Management Plan to be provided in relation to Badgers for each Key Phase or reserved matters application where this is relevant. In addition a licence from Natural England is required to close down any active setts on site and an informative in this regard has been added.
8.48. Other Species
• Reptiles, frogs and toads
8.48.1. Surveying of the site has identified two species of reptile; slow worm and common lizard in low numbers in the southern part of the site. No reptiles were found in the northern part of the site however it is possible that the exist in low numbers. Common frogs were found in the southern part of the site and common toad were found in one area to the east of Wootton Copse.
8.48.2. The ES considers that the establishment of the Country Park as well as the additional native habitat planting would increase connectivity and suitability of the habitat for reptiles across the site which would have a positive impact on all reptile species. It is also considered that this would also positively impact on other species including frogs and toads. Long term management operations within open space and landscaping areas and within the Country Park should consider the presence of reptiles and is secured as part of the Site Wide Ecological Mitigation and Management Strategy and Construction Environmental Management Plan (biodiversity) (conditions 5, 7 and 10).
8.48.3. BDBC Local Plan Policy EM4 advises that, “Development proposals will only be permitted if significant harm to biodiversity and/or geodiversity resulting from a development can be avoided or, if that is not possible, adequately mitigated…” It is evident that bringing forward a development of this scale, whilst providing the significant benefits of up to 3530 new homes, could conflict with some of the aims of Policy EM4 and this has been highlighted by the BDBC Biodiversity Officer. The impacts on biodiversity have formed part of the lengthy negotiations between the LPA and the developer with input from Natural England on the most appropriate ways to minimise the impacts on species and habitats and also to ensure that a biodiversity net gain can be achieved and secured.
8.49. Biodiversity Metric
8.49.1. The Council’s Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD sets out that mitigation for impacts on biodiversity will be sought on-site in the first instance. Where this is not possible, off-site compensation will be required within an agreed distance and at an appropriate location. Para 174 of the NPPF sets out that, “To protect and enhance biodiversity, plans should….identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity”.
8.49.2. The LPA is currently undertaking work on developing a Biodiversity Compensation Framework and ties in with Natural England work to have issued a revised Defra Biodiversity Metric in the spring. Following discussions between Council’s Biodiversity Officers and the applicant’s consultants further information has been provided. Given that Basingstoke Council has yet to introduce their metric, the development proposal has been assessed against the Warwickshire County Council Biodiversity Impact Assessment Calculator (Version 19)(WCC BIA). This is acknowledged to be a good example of a metric being utilised by a Local Authority and is shown within the Revised Biodiversity Impact Assessment Summary February 2020. The applicant concludes that the metric demonstrates net biodiversity gain from the Proposed Development for habitats, hedgerows and connectivity; taking into account losses, indirect impacts, enhancements and gains. The applicant also considers that the application of the calculator demonstrates that there will no ‘trading down’ of habitats within the mitigation strategy. The BDBC Biodiversity Officer has agreed that the Biodiversity Metric shows that the development could achieve a net gain.
8.49.3. The Biodiversity Metric confirms that the following would be provided within land in the applicant’s control to the north of the railway line:
The enhancement of 3.20 ha of broadleaved semi-natural woodland The enhancement and creation of 17.06ha of broadleaved plantation woodland The creation of 11.52 of species rich neutral grassland The creation of 2.58ha of marshy grassland The enhancement and creation of 8.17ha of arable field margins The enhancement and creation of 11.95ha of species rich hedgerows (which includes the enhancement of currently species poor hedgerows to species rich)
These habitats represent key habitat types in terms of Policy EM4. The submitted metric shows that the enhancement and/or creation of these habitats would result in the development achieving a biodiversity net gain of 3%. The Biodiversity Officer has confirmed acceptance of the metric presented in the application.
8.50. Mitigation
8.50.1. The ES describes the primary mitigation as inherent to the proposed development and includes:
Reduction of physical loss within the Green Lane Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) to the fullest possible extent and retention and protection of all retained SINCs (including the retained lengths of Green Lane SINC). Extension of the Green Lane feature north of Worting Wood by planting new hedgerows and trees associated with the existing hedgerow. New hedgerow and tree planting alongside the realigned section of B3400 Worting Road to ensure continuity of vegetation cover as far as is possible alongside the road and to assist screening and buffering of the north-south strategic ecological corridor along the west boundary of the Proposed Development. Provision of a minimum 5m buffer to hedgerows retained within or bordering the site; All ecological buffers, retained woodlands and retained and created hedgerows to be located within the public realm or, in the case of some hedgerows, within adopted highway verges; Translocation of important and species rich hedgerows to appropriate receptor locations, where these cannot be retained within a suitable setting within the proposed development; Creation of strategic ecological corridors.
8.50.2. The two overriding objectives of the Preliminary Ecological Mitigation Framework as described in the ES are to provide; unbroken functional wildlife corridors for movement of species through and around the proposed development, and valuable foraging, shelter and breeding habitats for a range of species affected by habitat losses as a consequence of the development.
8.50.3. The Biodiversity Officer has advised that although the proposed development includes a number of mitigation measures to avoid, mitigate and/or compensate impacts on certain ecological features and receptors the development would still result in:
A moderate adverse impact on 22 skylark territories (and a further 2 if the separate alternative western strategic ecological approved under application 19/02649/FUL is delivered) The partial loss and deterioration or a green lane which is also a SINC The deterioration and loss arable field margins that support rare arable plants The likely deterioration of ancient woodlands Harm to the link that the green lane currently provides for wildlife
8.50.4. This element of the proposal conflicts with the aims of Policy EM4 however mitigation proposals have also been proposed by the applicant to retain (and where possible expand) the populations of the following species known to be present on site. These include:
The assemblage of bat species on site The assemblage of different rare arable plant species on site Nesting and wintering birds including the assemblage of farmland birds (other than skylark), barn owls, red kites, and woodland and hedgerow birds Hazel dormice Badgers and brown hares Reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates
8.51. During and Post Construction
8.51.1. The Construction Environment Management Plan supporting the application and updated in July 2018 confirms that an Ecological Watching Brief is to be prepared on a site-wide basis, and will be implemented, (and where necessary reviewed and updated with phase/sub-phase specific iterations) prior to and throughout construction, including landscaping and landscape enabling works. This watching brief would be performed by an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW), whose position can be secured as part of the s106 and Site Wide Framework condition whose role will be to:
Confirm/identify ecological constraints on the ground; Review and update ecological surveys and methods statements; Ensure compliance with method statements, plans and specifications and with legislation, licences and planning conditions; Implement or supervise method statements, ecological method statements. Mitigation, compensation and enhancement work; Deliver toolbox talks and relevant training; Investigate incidents relating to ecological features; Document and maintain records of ecological measures undertaken; and Liaise with client, contractor and third parties.
8.51.2. It is important that monitoring of the mitigation is carried out on a regular basis to ensure that the development delivers the outcomes set out in the ES and so that the species currently supported on the site continue to use the area. Natural England advise that further plans including a Biodiversity Management and Monitoring Plan (BMMP) and Landscape Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) should be produced for specific habitats, species and/or areas. The structure and content of these are secured under the Site Wide Ecological Mitigation and Management Strategy and Key Phase Framework respectively and are required in order to ensure that any proposed mitigation would be fully funded and managed for the long term management of habitats and species of Manydown. Access management measures are also required to ensure that sensitive habitats are not adversely affected from recreational pressure in these areas.
8.51.3. There are various conditions which are relevant to biodiversity. The Site Wide Framework (condition 5) includes the requirement for the submission of a Site Wide Ecological Mitigation and Management Strategy and the Key Phase condition also requires the submission of a Key Phase Ecological Management Plan setting out how the development will secure ecological enhancements and mitigation, including the width and function of buffers, reflecting the approach set out in MSD13 Appendix F2 which supports the application. This approach provides a greater level of detail as the development progresses than that known at this outline stage and this, in combination with the biodiversity net gain achieved, appropriate conditions and mitigation as part of the s106, ensures that overall the development meets the aims of Policy EM4 and criterion (k) of Policy SS3.10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan and the NPPF.
SS3.10 (l) Include measures to mitigate the impact of the development on the local road network including improvements to the A339, Roman Road (and associated road junctions), the B3400, Pack Lane, and the road through Wootton St Lawrence with appropriate measures to maintain accessibility for existing residents and ensure safe and convenient access for all road-users;
8.52. Surrounding Highway Network
8.52.1. The site is bound by the A339 to the north of the site which connects Basingstoke to Newbury. The A339 joins Ringway North (at Trumpet Junction) in the east which connects to the A33 providing northern routes to Reading. Trumpet Junction is the interchange between the A339, Ringway North and Ringway South and therefore is a key off-site junction for the application.
8.52.2. The B3400 runs through the site splitting the southern-most parcel of the application site (to the north of the railway line) from the remainder. The B3400 joins the Ringway West at Thornycroft Roundabout having first passed through West Ham Roundabout when approached from the site.
8.52.3. Along the western boundary of the site runs Roman Road on a north/south alignment providing an existing link between the B3400 and the A339. At the northern end Roman Road roundabout is a junction at the intersection between Roman Road, the A339 and Rooksdown Avenue to the north. To the immediate south of this junction Wellington Terrace joins Roman Road at a T-Junction. At the southern end Roman Road becomes Roman Way, joining the B3400 at a roundabout junction which also provides access to Warham Road (part of the Worting Farm development to the south which also resulted in this junction being redesigned). To the east of this junction is the railway arch which provides two lane traffic but which is restricted for larger vehicles.
8.52.4. On the western edge of the site is Wootton One Mile. This runs on an approximate north/south alignment and would run through a small section of the proposed Country Park. Wootton One Mile then joins Ibworth Lane which provides a link back through to the A339 along the northern edge of the proposed Country Park.
8.53. Transport Assessment (TA)
8.53.1. The initial application submission in March 2017 was supported by a Transport Assessment (TA). Following the redesign of the three primary access points and further amendments to the evidence base in support of the application a second TA was submitted in July 2018, superseding the first. Subsequent to that two further addendums to the second TAs have been submitted in January 2019 and December 2019.
8.53.2. HCC as Highway Authority have reviewed the TA and addendums and have raised no objection subject to suitable mitigation being secured through a s106 Agreement and relevant planning conditions. The full list of required mitigation is set out in the most recent HCC Highways response which is included in full at Appendix 2 of this report.
8.53.3. The TA has been based on assessing the totality of the development proposed. The method for achieving this is to take a baseline position, and then to add on all existing anticipated growth to 2031 (the assessment year) without the impact of the proposed development (referred to as Scenario 1 in the TA). Development traffic is then added based on a 50% split of traffic using the link road though the site compared to alternative routes (Scenario 2A). The difference between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2A is then used to isolate and identify the impact of the whole development at the point at which the whole development has been realised.
8.53.4. Informing this approach has been what the applicant considers to be a “worst case” approach with regards to traffic inputs. This includes basing figures on a 70.1% car trips, no allowance being made for the affordable housing provision and only a 5% use of buses. HCC Highways consider this to be a robust position.
8.53.5. Central to the TA has been the use of the North Hampshire Transport Model (NHTM) as agreed with HCC Highways. This has been used to inform how traffic flows could alter over time taking into account planned interventions on the highways network. The NHTM outputs have been used to inform the mitigation package required to make the application proposals acceptable in transport terms.
8.53.6. Due to the strategic nature of the model HCC Highways requested further information in regards to the outputs of the model, taking account of local knowledge of how the highway network operates in specific locations. The Second TA Addendum therefore included further information in relation to:
Manydown Central Street Modelling – to take account of journey time information compared to alternative routes through B3400/Ringway and through Winklebury, resulting in a 50% split between through traffic using the central street compared to other alternatives. Rural routes to the south west – in particular routes heading towards Junction 7 and the A30, in particular Trenchard Lane. Here the NHTM outputs do not take account of the slower nature of the rural roads and therefore, informed by journey time information of comparison routes such as Kempshott Lane/Fiveways a reassignment exercise has been necessary. A33 Corridor – the initial outputs of the NHTM suggested lower flows post development than the baseline position. It is possible that this is as a result of reassignment of trips to alternative routes to the A33. Kempshott Lane – the applicant provided additional information in relation to the operation of Kempshott Roundabout taking account of potential routing along Kempshott Lane to this roundabout. While the applicant’s information concluded that this junction would be above capacity in 2031 in any case HCC Highways consider that the development would materially impact on this and therefore that an approach to potential mitigation would need to be agreed.
8.54. Policy Context
8.54.1. In addition to criterion (l) there are also other Local Plan policies and sections of the NPPF in particular of relevance to the mitigation of transport impacts from the development of Manydown.
8.54.2. Policy CN9 (Transport) requires that highway movements are not of an inappropriate type or level as to compromise highway safety with safe and convenient access for potential users and with a compatible on site layout with appropriate parking and serving provision. The need for appropriate parking is additionally reflected within Policy EM10 with respect to ensuring that the amount, design, layout and location accords with parking standards.
8.54.3. The NPPF is clear at paragraph 111 that developments which generate a significant amount of vehicle movements should be supported through a Transport Assessment and planning decisions need to take account of whether:
the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development.
8.54.4. Paragraph 108 requires development to ensure that:
“a) appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up, given the type of development and its location; b) safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and c) any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.”
8.54.5. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF confirms that, “development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe.” This application was supported by a Transport Assessment (TA) and various other supporting documents.
8.55. Monitor and Manage
8.55.1. The application documentation proposes a “monitor and manage” approach to how transport mitigation would be brought forward across the build out period of the development. As set out above the totality of the impact of the proposed development has been tested and the “worst case” approach has been used to ensure that this is robust, a position accepted by HCC Highways. However, across such an extensive period it is possible that other impacts on the highway network may change some of the assumptions made at this current outline stage, such as improvements to public transport routes (eg the aspiration for a Mass Rapid Transport (MRT) system explained in the Basingstoke Transport Strategy), other improvements to the highway network and changes in travel patterns more generally.
8.55.2. Accordingly it is considered to be useful to be able to review these in a formal way throughout the lifetime of the development. Beyond the early stage transport mitigation Key Phase Transport Assessments (as required by Condition 7) will require the applicant to provide updates on changes that could influence the eventual mitigation solutions. This is within the parameters of there being an agreed baseline position (see below) for mitigation based on the current TA and that any changes have to be agreed by the LPA through the approval of those documents, which would of course include consultation with HCC Highways.
8.55.3. The intended approach is for monitor and manage to apply to all of the off-site transport mitigation beyond initial “implementation stage” of this planning application ie, the implementation of the three access points which are the only parts of the development for detailed approval in this current outline planning application.
8.56. Mitigation
Accesses
8.56.1. The three primary access points have been designed to enable safe access to the site while also not compromising flow for existing routes. Following the initial submission HCC Highways objected to the access designs at that time. Subsequently the resubmission in July 2018 had followed extensive dialogue with HCC Highways as to the design requirements to enable accesses in the locations proposed to be achieved. This included amending the southern B3400 access to incorporate a second roundabout junction to operate alongside the signalised crossroads proposed and to the northern A339 junction amending this from a single roundabout solution to a dual roundabout solution. In this regard it is considered that the requirements of Policy CN9 in providing a safe and convenient access into the site have been met.
Early Phase Delivery (“implementation stage”)
8.56.2. As set out in the MSD6R Phasing Plan, Schedule of Development and Delivery Statement (Revised July 2018) it is envisaged that delivery of the site would come forward across three broad phases (noting that these are not the same as the geographical fix of a Key Phase as required by Condition 7). Indicatively Phase 1A/B is described as:
Phase 1A/B:
Up to 1,200 homes, including affordable housing Primary means of access. The first Primary School, opening initially as a 2FE school with capacity to expand in the future to a 3FE school. Nursery and pre-school provision. The Community Hub, either delivered initially as a temporary facility and then established permanently, or built permanently from the outset. This is ensure that there is a place for the community to gather from the beginning of the development. The opening of the Country Park. The associated neighbourhood park, open space, play areas and SUDs will also come forward with this phase
8.56.3. Through the progression of discussions with HCC Highways on the transport mitigation and requirements of the s106 a scenario of 1200 dwellings has been taken forward to provide some detail as to when the accesses and some of the associated infrastructure would be required. The following is a description of the key on-site requirements (referred to as the “implementation stage” as they seek to implement some of the accesses for which detailed planning permission is sought) together with necessary off-site mitigation.
8.56.4. Based on the scenario set out above the s106 Agreement secures the delivery of the Roman Road/Winklebury Way access (shown on the plan - Primary means of access Plan 2: Roman Road/ Winklebury Way, Drg No. 5556/OPA/007/P Rev A) and the delivery of the B3400 access (crossroads and roundabout shown on Primary means of access Plan 3: Worting Road Access Junction, Drg No. 5556/OPA/008/P Rev A) prior to occupation of any development.
8.56.5. In relation to off-site junction improvements Trumpet Junction (VS3) and West Ham Roundabout (VS6), early walking and cycling package and necessary contributions towards public transport subsidy and provision of related bus infrastructure to deliver the service (or equivalent) described as Phase 1 within the revised Public Transport Strategy would also be implemented within this timescale.
8.56.6. The northern access (shown on Primary means of access Plan 1: Access to A339 and Roman Road, Drg No. 5556/OPA/006/P Rev H) and the link through to Roman Road (shown as a secondary access in the current application, but details of which are required under Condition 18 to enable this to come forward with the A339 access) is then secured after 1200 occupations of residential units. The precise timing will be confirmed through the relevant Key Phase (with associated Key Phase Transport Assessment) that seeks to develop beyond the 1200 dwellings. However, to avoid any longer term delays in the delivery of this key junction a back stop of no more than 1500 occupations would be imposed. If the Key Phase Transport Assessment requires delivery before 1500 dwellings (but after 1200 dwellings) then this would be resolved through that assessment process.
8.56.7. Through the “fix” of these requirements in the s106 there would be no requirement for the transport principles of the development to be revisited in relation to the submission of Key Phase Transport Assessments and therefore Condition 7 has been worded to require only updates to the currently submitted information at this outline stage for Key Phases proposed up to the completion of the “implementation stage”, meaning the first 1200 occupations.
8.56.8. In essence the above secures defined delivery to support the implementation stage, whereby the principles of Monitor and Manage will not apply. Thereafter the link road and future development within Key Phases beyond that together with necessary off-site interventions (identified in the TA and Addendums) together with walking and cycling improvements would be delivered at timings based on updated information assessed through the Key Phase Transport Assessments (as required by Condition 7), applying the monitor and manage approach to these interventions.
8.57. Other Off-Site Mitigation
8.57.1. The TA and associated Movement Strategy has defined the impact of the proposed development on a corridor basis. Through this approach it has been possible to identify the key locations where mitigation for transport impacts is required. Through extensive discussion with HCC Highways the applicant has agreed a package of off-site mitigation the total transport contributions (including public transport and walking and cycling) would be up to £25.75m towards key off- site junctions, public transport and walking and cycling improvements and a number of off-site junctions that the applicant would deliver directly under s278 agreements. All of these would be secured in the proposed s106 agreement. The basis of the mitigation package is as follows.
Contributions to Key Junctions
8.57.2. A financial contribution has been agreed for the delivery of improvements to Trumpet Junction (VS3 in the TA), Fiveways (VS8) and Victory Roundabout (VS14). The reasons for a contribution based approach to these is that in each case while a detailed scheme for improvements to the capacity of each junction has been provided within the application documents it is possible that these could be refined by the Highway Authority to achieve bettered outcomes.
8.57.3. In addition the TA identifies a number of impacts along key corridors which are set out in the Movement Strategy. These include the A339, A33 and A30. In relation to the A339 the TA is supported by a series of detailed junction improvements with a significant focus on safety led improvements. While the development would not be required to deliver the entirety of the improvements the impact of Manydown has to be mitigated. A contribution based approach has therefore been agreed with the Highway Authority to enable the best combination of improvements along the A339 to be achieved, while also allowing for any other changes in the network and refinements to options for the junction designs to be accounted for.
8.57.4. In relation to the A33 and A30 corridors a contribution based approach has also been agreed with the highways authority. Beyond any specific junction improvements this relates to the ability to intervene in key locations either on the corridor itself or through reassigned trips from the corridor. For example, concerns have been raised in public representations in relation to the potential for trips to reassign away from the strategic network and onto rural lanes such as Trenchard Lane for trips to the west of Basingstoke should impacts at key junctions such as Fiveways be more significant than evidenced at this outline stage. The corridor contribution in such a scenario could allow for traffic management interventions to be made.
Delivery of Key Off-site Junctions
8.57.5. The application documents have included designs for improvements to capacity at a number of junctions where due to varying reasons there are limited options for alteration to the designs which are considered acceptable in principle to HCC Highways. The junctions in this category are:
West Ham Roundabout (VS6); Buckskin Roundabout (VS7); Old Kempshott Lane (VS9); and Roman Way Roundabout (VS10)
8.57.6. With the exception of West Ham Roundabout which will be required to be delivered as part of the “implementation stage” (see above) the delivery, triggers for delivery and/or final design would be subject to the monitor and manage approach which would be informed through the submission of Key Phase Transport Assessments as required by Condition 7.
8.57.7. The proposed alterations for Old Kempshott Lane for example have been subject to a number of representations as set out above. While details have been provided by the applicant to demonstrate options considered for interventions at this time, the only option that is deemed currently workable is the ban on right turns into Old Kempshott Lane. However, based on the information submitted in the TA this intervention is likely to be required at the back end of the development build out. As such the relevant Key Phase Transport Assessment will have the opportunity to assess whether the intervention is still required (for example if modal shift through increased public transport, walking and cycling has been successful the capacity issues identified at this junction may not be realised) and/or whether an alternative design by that time might be considered appropriate.
8.58. Public Transport
8.58.1. The NPPF emphasises the importance of new development prioritising pedestrians and cyclists along with the provision of high quality public transport.
8.58.2. Development Principle 2a advises that public transport services at the site should provide frequent, speedy, direct access to the town centre, job opportunities and other key destinations with bus stops located to ensure that all properties would be within 400m (5 minutes walk) of their nearest stop.
Existing Public Transport Services
8.58.3. The site ranges from between 3.8km to approximately 6km from the train station which is considered to represent a suitable cycling distance to this public transport. HCC Highways has confirmed that it will be important to encourage trips from the development to the station by sustainable modes. In order to achieve this, it will be important to co-ordinate bus timetables with the rail services during periods of the highest demand to ensure that overall journey time for sustainable modes trips are kept to a minimum, thereby increasing its attractiveness.
8.58.4. The application site is currently served by two main bus services. Route 6 provides a route from the town centre looping around Winklebury with the western extent of the route being along Roman Road adjacent to the eastern boundary of the application site. This has a 10min frequency on weekday daytime (30mins in the evenings). Route 76 runs along the B3400 to the town centre with a 20min weekday daytime frequency (hourly in the evenings).
Proposed Public Transport Strategy
8.58.5. The application has been supported by a revised Public Transport Strategy as part of the Second TA Addendum (December 2019). Section 6 of the Second TA Addendum sets out the summary intentions of the revised strategy with Appendix B: Updated Public Transport Strategy confirming more detail.
8.58.6. As set out above the main TA and subsequent addendums is based on the applicant’s asserted “worst case” of 70% mode of trips by private car. Alongside this 5% trips are assigned as being by bus (Table 1 of the Main TA and repeated in the Second TA Addendum). It is important to note that as set out above the off- site mitigation for highways works has been based on this baseline position and not a predicted modal shift towards public transport at this outline stage.
8.58.7. The Public Transport Strategy is based around moving from a “baseline” service to an “enhanced” in three main phases across the development of the site. The first phase seeks to maintain the existing position of 5% bus usage. Subject to where the first Key Phases are defined (as required by Condition 7) and developed from these existing services could be within 400m of the majority of the new dwellings created.
8.58.8. The second phase would be informed by the Key Phase Transport Assessments taking account of changes on the highway network, changes in travel patterns and demand for services. This would seek to ensure a 20min frequency of service to the town centre from within the site. Three additional buses would be require to fulfil this element. To enable this approach, defining the Key Phase(s) and the physical links those enable within the site will need careful consideration and the relevant Key Phase Transport Assessments will enable the assessment of the accessibility of the site for buses to be reviewed as part of that process.
8.58.9. The third phase assumes that enhancements to both existing services will result in a 20min frequency across the whole site with the opportunity for a 10min frequency at a “bus hub” location at the centre of the site where the two routes converge.
8.58.10. At the time of this report discussions are ongoing between the applicant and service providers as to the best means to achieve the intended strategy. Accordingly while routes have been shown in the submitted documents to inform the Public Transport Strategy, it is the case that these could be subject to change across the development period. Again the review and control of these details will be through the submission and approval of Key Phase Transport Assessments.
Securing the Public Transport Strategy
8.58.11. The revised Public Transport Strategy has been reviewed by HCC Highways as part of the overall application. As set out in their consultation response at Appendix 1 the Public Transport Strategy is accepted as being the basis of agreeing an approach that will need to be reviewed as the development progresses to see whether targeted modal shift is realised (as set out above this will be through the Key Phase Transport Assessments). A particular advantage of this approach is that other changes, such as any development of a Mass Rapid Transport (MRT) as described in the Basingstoke Transport Strategy (July 2019), can be taken account of.
8.58.12. Following more detailed discussions on the s106 Agreement the applicant has agreed to a contribution of up to £1,556,442 to support the delivery of the Public Transport Strategy. The timings of payment of contributions and/or approach to delivery of service improvements are being progressed through the drafting of the s106 to support the principle of early delivery to maximise opportunities to influence travel patterns of new residents within the development.
8.59. Walking and Cycling
8.60. Measures to improve walking and cycling to the site are set out in the Transport Assessment Second Addendum Appendix C: Walking and Cycling Note. This sets out the proposals for off-site enhancement of the existing strategic cycle route (Route 6) as identified in the Basingstoke Cycle Strategy (2016). The wider assessment as to the suitability of these proposals are also covered as relevant to criterion (n) (walking and cycling routes from Winklebury to the Country Park) and criterion (o) (walking, cycling, public transport, links to the town centre). However, the intentions of the proposals also have an impact in considering the monitor and manage approach in seeking to reduce the overall car usage of the development from the baseline position established in the supporting TA and addendums.
8.61. The proposals for off-site works include a range of interventions along the route which provides east/west access to the town centre. The interventions vary in nature such as minor interventions of cutting back vegetation and installing convex mirrors to improve visibility through to resurfacing and widening of routes in key locations.
8.62. The points of improvement along the route are set out at:
Victory Roundabout King George V Playing Fields Thornycroft Lane West Ham Roundabout Leisure Park Winklebury Way Winklebury Way East Northern Route (Winklebury Way/Houndmills Link)
8.63. The improvements to the routes have been subject to review by HCC Highways and are deemed acceptable in principle. A financial contribution of up to £3.2m to secure delivery of these improvements has been agreed in principle with HCC and is included within the recommendation to be secured in the s106 Agreement.
8.64. It is therefore considered that in relation to providing access to Manydown to aid permeability to and from the site the access points and improvements for walking and cycling routes off-site fulfil this part of Policy SS3.10(n).
8.65. Summary of Mitigation
8.65.1. The TA has identified an extensive package of mitigation to ensure that the transport impacts of the development are considered acceptable. This includes the identification of measures themselves, delivery of the implementation stage mitigation, securing the other off-site requirements and having a framework for review through monitor and manage. In addition a Framework Travel Plan has been submitted that would be refined through the Site Wide Framework (Condition 5) and Key Phase Framework (Condition 7) submissions. Alongside this and highly relevant to the issue of mitigating the transport impacts of the development is an extensive walking and cycling strategy and public transport strategy that enables non-car based journeys to be embedded within the movement strategy for the development early. On this basis it is considered that criterion (l) of Policy SS3.10 is met and the development is also in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan and NPPF.
SS3.10 (m) Include provision of a road through the land allocated for housing, from the A339 to the B3400, linking the proposed housing to the existing communities and to provide the ability to connect to potential future sites to the south, with the location and design of the road being determined through the master-planning process to achieve the optimum balance between movement and place-shaping. Land shall be safeguarded for a potential future crossing of the railway;
8.65.2. The application site area extends to the northern side of the railway line up to the A339. The three principal access points are proposed in detail in the application. The access points from the A339 and B3400 are consistent with the broad locations shown on the Policy SS3.10 Inset Map (illustrative purposes only). The parameter plans submitted with the application shows a route for a road through the site connecting the A339 northern access to the B3400 access and into the southern part of the site (to the north of the railway line). The route is shown as a corridor (up to 70m wide in places) within which a road can be provided with the precise design, layout and location within that corridor to be determined through the post outline stages. The requirement for the link road and the timing of its provision is secured in the s106 agreement, linked to the Site Wide and Key Phase approval processes. The first part of Policy SS3.10 (m) regarding the “provision of a road through the land allocated for housing from the A339 to the B3400” is therefore met.
8.65.3. The access points are for consideration under this outline application as they are proposed in detail. Accordingly the location of where the road enters the site from the B3400 and A339 is set by the approval of this application. In addition there is a point within the safeguarded corridor where the space within which the road can be designed narrows as it crosses the Green Lane, to ensure that the point of the crossing is at the least sensitive in ecological terms as set out above. The detail of how the road then is designed to accommodate anticipated traffic flows, its relationship to adjoining land uses etc is then a matter for the Site Wide and Key Phase stages, ultimately leading to reserved matter applications. It is only through that more detailed design process that the influencers on the design of the road will be identified in detail to allow that design to take place. However, consideration of the broad location of the road (within the corridor, crossing Green Lane at a more specific point and where it links to the B3400 and A339) is set within the proposed plans. The assessment of the broad location is therefore given further consideration below.
8.66. Policy Context
8.66.1. The requirements for a link road through the application site are expressed under criterion (m) as set out above. The policy does require “the ability to connect to potential future sites to the south…” and that “Land shall be safeguarded for a potential future crossing of the railway.
8.66.2. The subtext to Policy SS3.10 (albeit not the policy itself) provides some commentary on the matter at para 4.55 in stating:
“The wider Manydown site offers longer term potential for further development and as a component of this, consideration should be given to the future provision of a western by-pass connecting the A339 and junction 7 of the M3. In undertaking master-planning of the wider Manydown area, regard should be given to safeguarding land for crossing the railway line, as identified on the Inset Map, and the need to avoid prejudicing the delivery of the current proposed housing.”
8.66.3. Beyond this the Local Plan Examiner, in considering the issue of a Western Bypass stated the following in the Examiner’s Report:
“The delivery of a western bypass is a long term ambition of the Council. It is not, however, included in any implementation programmes of the LHA, and it is therefore inappropriate to include it within a Plan policy. The modification to delete the western bypass from policy SS3.10 and replace it with explanatory text [MM28 and 22] accords with national policy. The need to secure safeguarded land for a potential future crossing of the railway is necessary in the interests of positive planning, and a modification [MM27] achieves this.”
8.66.4. The policy does not therefore require the current application or wider allocation to include a “Western Bypass”. Indeed the wording referencing a Western Bypass was explicitly removed from the draft policy. How the link road could function in relation to the movement from and across the site is set out below.
8.66.5. Taking this into account the provision of the link road needs to be considered in the context of what Policy SS3.10 requires and not what may have otherwise been envisaged during the preparation of the Local Plan. In relation to wider masterplanning, Policy SS3.10 does require the ability to connect to future sites to the south and that a crossing of the railway line to enable that. Within the scope of this planning application (noting that the application site excludes land known as Parcel 6A and stops north of the railway line), the key element is therefore securing a safeguarded area for the crossing of the railway line.
8.67. Railway Crossing
8.67.1. The Principal Access and Movement Parameter Plan shows two roughly triangular areas of land safeguarded as potential crossing points for the railway line. The first is relatively central across the southernmost boundary of the application site, with the key to this element confirmed on the Principal Access and Movement Plan as:
“Land to be developed in the last development phase, allowing for further studies of the alignment of the potential rail crossing to be undertaken prior to the development of this phase.”
The second is located to the south-western corner of the application site with the key confirming:
“Land safeguarded for potential future railway crossing if required. To be safeguarded for the duration of the Local Plan period.”
8.67.2. The plans for approval as part of this application therefore provide some flexibility as to the precise location of the crossing which will be influenced through further consultation with Network Rail, future choices regarding the bringing forward of Parcel 6A and how the section of the application to the south of the B3400 is brought forward in relation to link roads between the railway line and B3400.
8.67.3. For the purposes of the current planning application Network Rail has responded to the application raising no objection. In relation to the location and potential crossing of the railway Network Rail confirm that:
“Network Rail has no objections to the principle of the rail bridge as identified in the Parameters Plan, nor is there an objection to the proposed location. It is physically possible to construct a bridge in any location adjacent to the application site.”
8.67.4. Network Rail’s response goes on to confirm the number of physical matters such as clearance requirements that will need to be met and encourages the applicant to engage with their Asset Protection Team at the earliest opportunity. However, for the purposes of the current application it is considered that the plans show options of safeguarded land, which can be secured by condition, to meet the requirements of Policy SS3.10(m).
8.68. Balance between place and capacity
8.68.1. Policy SS3.10 sets out the reasons for requiring the link road as:
“…linking the proposed housing to the existing communities and to provide the ability to connect to potential future sites to the south, with the location and design of the road being determined through the master-planning process to achieve the optimum balance between movement and place-shaping.”
8.68.2. As set out above the detailed design of the link road will be secured in future approval stages. However, it is appropriate to assess the basis of the application to consider whether the policy requirements for the link road can be achieved through the current outline planning application proposals.
8.68.3. In relation to linking to existing communities the corridor within which the link road would be provided would create the physical link between the north of the site to Rooksdown and to the south of the site into Buckskin. The length of the road together with proposed connections through to the Winklebury Way access (details of which are for approval within this application) and the location of a link through to Roman Road in the northern section of the site (shown as a secondary access but with details reserved) would create links through to Winklebury. How those links come forward in detailed design, the balance between vehicular, public transport, walking and cycling would be matters for future approval stages, but the Principal Access and Movement Plan together with anticipated land uses on the Land Use Parameter Plans shows the ability for site both the transport links and the layout of the site to accommodate the required links to existing communities.
8.68.4. The link road will need to perform the function of moving between two existing heavily trafficked corridors on the B3400 and A339 and provide the main north/south movement corridor for within the site. At the same time the fact that Policy SS3.10 requires the link road to go “through” the land allocated for housing means that there is inevitably going to be some tension between the function of the road primarily as a movement corridor and the function of the road in aiding the creation of a place. This is recognised in criterion (m) of Policy SS3.10 as set out above but elaborated on within the Manydown SPD. In particular the SPD recognises that the link road is intended to act as a through-route and to function as a street which will create character and shape a high quality place. Development Principle 2(e) of the SPD sets out the more specific principles for the link road:
“A link road connecting from the A339 to the B3400 will be an important movement corridor for both the proposed development and the existing road network.
The design must provide a safe and comfortable environment for all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. The design and character of the road will need to reflect the changing character of the development, so that it relates appropriately to the adjoining land uses. The link road should be flanked by areas of frontage development and public spaces at various set-backs. The scale and design of the link road should not result in severance to the development and become a barrier to desire lines across the site. Crossings should be provided at suitable points along the route, with their location informed by desire lines (and the surrounding land uses), and their design informed by expected traffic flows. The design of the road, including its alignment and surfacing should be carefully considered to manage the speed of motor vehicles. The design of the road and its relationship with the surrounding land uses should minimise the impact of noise and air pollution. Along the link road, non-car movement will be facilitated by provision for buses and routes for cyclists and pedestrians.
8.68.5. By virtue of the scale of junctions from A339 and B3400 the nature of the road is bound to be highway/capacity led in the first instance, changing as the road then passes through the more central section of the site where the proximity to a range of different land uses takes place.”
8.68.6. Many of these issues will be considered in more detail at the future approval stages. However, it is relevant to consider whether this outline application allows for the principles set out above to be achieved, most directly through the consideration of the type of road that could be achieved within the parameters of land use and corridor for the road set out in the application.
8.68.7. Through the requirement of Policy SS3.10 to provide the link road from the B3400 to the A339 it is inevitable that the access points at each end of the link road are going to be substantial junctions as shown on the details for approval in this application. Accordingly, to greater or lesser degrees, the design and character of the link road immediately away from these junctions is more likely to be geared towards higher capacity.
8.68.8. For the northern A339 access the detailed plans for approval show three lanes existing the site at the junction and two lanes entering the site. The extent of the plan for approval shows 4 lanes (two each way) approximately 125 metres into the site when measured from the entry point of the proposed junction. This would be at the broad location where the Principal Access and Movement Parameter Plan shows a link through to the secondary access to the north end of Roman Road. It is likely therefore that this is going to be a key interchange within the site where the nature of the link road would in any case change from the entrance at the north.
8.68.9. The southern access from the B3400 is proposed to be formed in two parts of the western-most roundabout and the proposed signalised crossroads (both shown in detail for approval in this application). The signalised crossroads would have two lanes exiting the site onto the B3400 (southbound) and one lane coming into the site (northbound). As the road extends north the detailed design shows two lanes (single each way). The western-most roundabout proposed from the B3400 also shows two lanes as the access extends northwards into the site (again the access is shown in detail for approval at this stage). The Principal Access and Movement Parameter Plan shows the two elements of the southern access onto the B3400 linking within the site. Similar to the point raised above regarding the northern access, the point at which these two elements meet will be a key movement interchange.
8.68.10. The creation of two roads leading to the southern access arrangements would also facilitate a change in character of the roads to take account of surrounding land uses. The western element would pass the proposed southern primary school and the eastern element would go through the proposed local centre. Both would require careful detailed design to ensure appropriate character to the roads once the precise land use arrangements adjoining the road are approved. Accordingly it is considered appropriate to include a particular focus on these interchanges within the Site Wide Framework stages set out in Condition 5.
SS3.10 (n) Evaluate a range of options during the detailed master-planning phase for providing access to Manydown which aid permeability to and from the site in a manner that ensures proper consideration is given to a range of matters (e.g. rat-running) which potentially affect the quality of life for existing communities. In addition, there should be safe and convenient access from Winklebury by means of footpaths and cycle paths connecting to the Country Park;
8.69. Access to the Site
8.69.1. The Access and Movement Parameter Plan sets out the location of principal vehicular access points (those shown for detailed approval as set out above) and indicative access points, the corridor for the link road and indicative locations of vehicular links (secondary accesses). In addition the Access and Movement Parameter Plan shows existing rights of way maintained as well as indicative locations of proposed key pedestrian and cycle routes. In total five points of vehicular access are proposed to the north of the B3400 and two to the land south of the B3400. As such, as far as reasonably required at an outline stage, the planning application demonstrates how access to and through the site to aid permeability can be achieved as required by SS3.10(n). This approach also complies with Principle 2 (c) (Making Walking and Cycling Desirable) of the Manydown Development Brief SPD which in part states:
“…Where possible, there should be multiple access points from surrounding roads and paths into Manydown to make the site more permeable for cyclists and pedestrians, as well as helping to provide access to the wider countryside”.
8.69.2. The movement through the site to the wider countryside which is the second part of the element of Principle 2(c) is also referenced in Policy SS3.10(n) for “safe and convenient access from Winklebury by means of footpaths and cycle paths connecting to the Country Park”. The application proposes to achieve this in a number of ways as set out below under “Movement Through the Site”.
8.69.3. However, with regard to access to Manydown the application includes measures to improve walking and cycling to the site as set out in the Transport Assessment Second Addendum Appendix C:Walking and Cycling Note. This sets out the proposals for off-site enhancement of the existing strategic cycle route (Route 6) as identified in the Basingstoke Cycle Strategy (2016). The proposals for off-site works include a range of interventions along the route which provides east/west access to the town centre. The interventions vary in nature such as minor interventions of cutting back vegetation and installing convex mirrors to improve visibility through to resurfacing and widening of routes in key locations.
The points of improvement along the route are set out at:
Victory Roundabout King George V Playing Fields Thornycroft Lane West Ham Roundabout Leisure Park Winklebury Way Winklebury Way East Northern Route (Winklebury Way/Houndmills Link)
8.69.4. The improvements to the routes have been subject to review by HCC Highways and are deemed acceptable in principle. A financial contribution to secure delivery of these improvements has been agreed in principle with HCC and is included within the recommendation to be secured in the s106 Agreement.
8.69.5. It is therefore considered that in relation to providing access to Manydown to aid permeability to and from the site the access points and improvements for walking and cycling routes off-site fulfil this part of Policy SS3.10(n).
8.70. Movement Through the Site
Footpaths and Cyclepaths
8.70.1. The site has existing rights of way crossing it. Footpath 39 leads from Roman Road (opposite the junction with Kenilworth Road) and leads south-east to south- west until it turns northwards on the edge of the proposed Country Park. Footpath 27 (otherwise known as Green Lane) leads from the northern end of Church Lane and goes through the land proposed for the Country Park. Footpath 22 joins into the southern section of Footpath 27 from Roman Way. Footpaths 39 and 27 are linked by Footpath 26B which aligns broadly east/west across the southern edge of the proposed Country Park.
8.70.2. In relation to access to the Country Park from Winklebury the maintenance of the aforementioned routes is key. These are existing rights of way and the Access and Movement Plan shows their retention (section (o) of the report sets out the specific proposals for the rights of way). However, in relation to the specific requirements of criterion (n) the maintenance of the rights of way which provide direct access from the Ward boundary of Winklebury (and Buckskin through Worting) to and through the proposed Country Park contributes to meeting this criteria.
8.70.3. As set out elsewhere in this report the corridor for the proposed link road is shown on the Access and Movement Plan. The detailed design is to be provided at later stages and ultimately at reserved matters stage. However, it is clear from the requirement to provide the link road that it will cut across Footpath 27 and Footpath 39. To maintain the routes appropriately to achieve access to the Country Park it will therefore be necessary to ensure that the link road can be crossed at suitable locations. Accordingly Figure 4.30 set out in the Design and Access Statement recognises “key crossing pedestrian crossings” at the interchange between the rights of way and other proposed pedestrian routes where they cross the link road. Again the detailed design of these can only be assessed at the detailed design stage but the maintained and proposed routes ensure that the access through the site to the Country Park can be accommodated.
Vehicular Movement
8.70.4. The nature of the link road and wider transportation issues are set out elsewhere in this report. In relation to the permeability of the site for vehicles and in particular consideration of issues such as rat-running as set out in Policy SS3.10(n) the detail of how such issues will be managed will ultimately depend on the detailed design of the roads, layout of the development and relationship to adjoining land uses.
8.70.5. Insofar as set out within this outline application the link road has to be provided and is required to allow for traffic between the B3400 and A339. The focus therefore of this element of Policy SS3.10(n) is towards the internal workings of the site in relation to road layout and opportunities for rat-running through the site via existing communities such as Winklebury. At this outline stage while it is clear that there will be access, for example, from Roman Road in two locations (the proposed junction at Winklebury Way and the secondary access close to Wellington Terrace) how those junctions and subsequent internal routes operate and are designed would be for consideration at the reserved matter stage.
SS3.10 (o) Include measures to improve accessibility by non-car transport modes including the provision of internal walking and cycling routes linked to existing external routes, the Public Rights of Way network and the Strategic Cycle Network, with direct cycle access to the town centre and the provision of public transport from the outset;
8.70.6. The NPPF emphasises the importance of new development prioritising pedestrians and cyclists along with the provision of high quality public transport. In relation to PRoW the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 98) also requires that development “should protect and enhance public rights of way and access, including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users”.
8.70.7. Policy CN9 Transport requires development proposals include to “integrate into existing movement networks; provide safe, suitable and convenient access for all potential users…and protect and where possible enhance access to public rights of way.
8.70.8. Development Principle 2a of the Manydown Development Brief SPD advises that public transport services at the site should provide frequent, speedy, direct access to the town centre, job opportunities and other key destinations with bus stops located to ensure that all properties would be within 400m (5 minutes walk) of their nearest stop.
8.70.9. The Public Transport Strategy and Walking and Cycling Strategy are described in detail above, along with how they will be secured to be delivered. As set out these are considered acceptable and the assessment provided above is applicable to these elements of fulfilling criterion (o) of Policy SS3.10. However, the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) provision is not covered in such detail above and therefore is assessed as follows.
8.71. Effect on the Public Rights of Way (PROW) Network
8.71.1. There are six main Public Rights of Way (PRoW) which interact with the site:
Route 27: a footpath (including Green Lane) which transverses part of the Site on a broadly north-south alignment and passes through Worting Wood. It is flanked by tall hedgerow and mature trees and links Worting with the Wootton St Lawrence lane. Route 26a: a footpath which runs east-west through arable fields between Worting Wood and the village of Wootton St Lawrence. Route 39: a footpath which links Roman Road and the Wootton St Lawrence lane and which utilises a vehicular access track to Worting Farm and two private residential properties. Route 22: a footpath which follows the northern edge of Worting Conservation Area and is bordered by mature trees and a tall hedgerow. Route 26b: a footpath which runs along a field edge and the southern edge of Worting Wood. Route 719: a footpath which runs along a field edge on a north south alignment between Pack Lane and Worting Road.
8.71.2. The impact of development and mitigation proposed can be described in relation to on-site and off-site provision as follows.
On-site PROW
8.71.3. The amended application details that further discussions have taken place with the Rights of Way Authority and that revised proposals are set out in the Transport Assessment and Landscape Strategy. The Design and Access Statement supporting the application confirms that the existing PROW, Route 27 (Green Lane) that extends from Church Lane to Worting Wood will continue to provide connectivity for pedestrians from Worting Village in the south, through the development to the new Country Park in the north. However due to its ecological, landscape and historic value the Landscape Strategy details that in addition a new multi-user route will be created parallel to Green Lane to encourage cycles and more intensive use onto this path and to ensure that the existing feature is protected. It is considered that this is an appropriate approach in seeking to reduce the impact on the ecological value of Green Lane while also maintaining the north/south desire line for a larger population.
8.71.4. In relation to the rest of the existing on-site PRoW these are proposed to be preserved and upgraded with a durable and suitable surface. There will also be a network of new footpaths within the Country Park which will tie in with the existing PRoW providing access to the wider countryside. Detailed proposals for the on- site works have not been finalised at this time however a Highway Agreement for these works can be secured through the s106 to include commuted sums for the future maintenance of the upgraded assets.
Off-site PROW
8.71.5. The Landscape Strategy details that the development is likely to place additional recreational pressure on some of the existing Public Rights of Way within the proximity of the site (offsite) and surfacing and signage improvements have been proposed to mitigate the impact of the development. The Strategy also confirms that a review of the existing extensive network has been undertaken and through discussions with the Rights of Way Authority, that a list of suggested improvements has been drawn up, and that where necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms that the works will be completed by us as the Highway Authority and secured through s106.
8.71.6. Discussions have continued through the consideration of the application and this overall approach has narrowed to two key elements of offs-site works. The first is in relation to improvements to the network to the north and west of the site to create an enhanced looped route around the site. This is considered to be important so that the countryside amenity currently enjoyed by use of the existing on-site network (on an undeveloped site) will be lost to an extent. As such this looped route will provide for the rural amenity beyond the application boundary.
8.71.7. The second is in relation to a connection between the site and Oakley. While the route for this is yet to be defined the intention to provide the route directly responds to paragraph 8.4.7.2 of the Oakley and Deane Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2029 which states:
“A new multi-user pathway should also be provided between Oakley and the proposed Country Park near Wootton St Lawrence to permit access by foot or bicycle by residents of Oakley and Newfound without the need to use motor vehicles.”
8.71.8. It is considered that there are options as to the route this takes and whether it integrates enhancements/connectivity to existing routes and highways or provides a new route.
8.71.9. Accordingly a contribution based approach is proposed for securing an appropriate off-site PRoW contribution to be secured in the s106 Agreement. BDBC Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD also provides that site related transport improvements are to be secured through s106 and this is being secured.
8.71.10. Taking account of the above stated assessment of the Public Transport Strategy, Walking and cycling Strategy and approach to on-site and off-site PRoW and securing the outcomes described the application is considered to meet the requirements of criterion (o) of Policy SS3.10, the relevant parts of Policy CN9 and the Neighbourhood Plans.
SS3.10 (p) Incorporate and/or promote renewable and low carbon energy technologies;
8.71.11. The Construction Statement (MSD10) supporting the application include the principles which are to be reflected in the sustainability strategy for the development; a commitment to achieve water efficiencies, a framework for how reserved matters applications would minimise energy consumption and supporting information to incorporate and/or promote renewable and low carbon technologies. The Construction Statement advises that it is at the detailed stage that most of the specific sustainable design can be integrated when key phases come forward and could be informed by an Sustainability Strategy to be secured as part of the Key Phase submission and this is included as part of condition 7.
8.71.12. The council has declared a Climate Emergency with an aim to make the council’s activities carbon neutral by December 2025 and the wider borough carbon neutral by 2030. Whilst these aims are noted there is not a Local Plan policy which requires this to be considered as part of the planning submission. However, in relation to sustainability, Manydown Development Brief Principle 5e (Sustainable Construction) sets out that the layout, design and construction of the development should promote the efficient use of natural resources through:
a) Reducing resource requirements in terms of energy demands and water use b) Considering opportunities for renewable and low carbon energy technologies c) The use of passive solar design to maximise the use of the sun’s energy for heating and cooling, and d) Mitigating flooding, pollution and overheating.
8.71.13. The applicant has confirmed that this outline application has sought to make the most sustainable use of the site and to enable a development layout that:
Optimises the ability for future communities to access local facilities using non-car modes of transport Enables walking and cycling connections through green spaces within the Site, particularly north to south, providing wildlife corridors Focuses the massing of the main local centre with its community, commercial and educational uses, in the central eastern area of the Site to optimise accessibility for new residential areas and existing communities to the east of the site Ensures that surface water is managed as close to its source as possible using SuDS so that there will be no increase in off-site flood risk
8.71.14. It is considered that as well as the sustainable approaches set out above, the principles set out in the Construction Statement provide confidence that there is a desire from the applicant to achieve the use of renewable and low carbon energy technologies on the site. The Sustainability Strategy would secure more specific details of how to achieve the stated approach in the strategy including minimising CO2 emissions over the life of buildings, exceeding Building Regulation requirements for residential dwellings and environmental performance standards for non-residential buildings and condition 31 requires a Construction Statement to be submitted that identifies how the sustainable design outlined in the Key Phase Sustainability Strategy has been incorporated.
8.72. Sustainable Water Use
8.72.1. The Construction Statement supporting the application sets out that in order to achieve the target of water usage of less than 110 litres per day for residential properties as set out in Policy EM9 of the Local Plan, it is proposed to use a range of water efficient fittings, appliances and water recycling systems. For new non- residential development of 1000sqm gross floor area or greater, Policy EM9 requires the development to meet the BREEAM ‘excellent’ standards for water consumption. The water consumption specification for both residential and non- residential buildings would be determined as part of the development specification for the whole site and secured as part of condition 31.
SS3.10 (q) Ensure acceptable noise standards can be met within homes and amenity areas through suitable mitigation measures in light of the adjacent main roads and railway line;
8.72.2. The site is bound by a number of roads with A339 to the north of the site and the B3400 intersecting the site between east and west. The southern boundary of the site is bound by the main Exeter/Weymouth to London Waterloo railway line.
8.72.3. Paragraph 180 of the NPPF requires that planning decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on Noise was updated in July 2019.
8.72.4. Development Principle 4l of the Manydown Development Brief requires that, “New development should not have a detrimental impact upon the quality of life of existing residents in relation to noise and air quality exposure. In addition, residents of new development should not be exposed to existing sources of noise or air-pollution that would have a detrimental impact upon quality of life. In particular, the design and location of sensitive uses should take into account the transport infrastructure including the railway line, the A339, the B3400, and the new link road, and noise issues arising from any proposed commercial/retail/entertainment uses in the centres.” Air quality is considered later in this report under ‘other matters’.
8.72.5. A Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment has been carried out as part of the EIA and is within the ES. This has identified that the sources of noise most likely to affect the development are the railway line in the southern part of the site, road traffic from existing roads and the new Main Street through the site. The South West main line railway is also a source of vibration. Monitoring was undertaken at several locations within the site; 4m to the southwest of the A339, immediately to the north of Worting House and 8m to the northwest of the nearest tracks of the railway line. Additional monitoring of road noise and railway traffic noise and vibration was also undertaken.
8.72.6. In relation to noise, the objective levels for new development can be found in the council’s ‘Noise assessments and reports for planning application - Guidance note for developers and consultants’ document. The Environmental Health Officer has assessed the submission in relation to noise and confirmed that the baseline noise and vibration study provides a robust assessment of the existing noise and vibration climate across the development site.
8.72.7. The survey work shows that daytime noise levels across a large part of the middle study area of the site is dominated by noise from railway movements and road traffic and noise levels in this area are likely to exceed the 55 dB L Aeq,16hr level. In the north study area a large proportion is below the maximum BDBC preferred noise levels. External amenity areas such as gardens should not be located within areas which exceed the upper criterion of 55 dB L Aeq,16hr. In areas where internal noise levels are likely to be exceeded, there are a range of mitigation measures that could be used. These include the orientation of buildings to form a barrier block and the potential use of mechanical ventilation. Condition 20 secures the provision of a noise mitigation scheme to ensure that acceptable internal noise levels are achieved.
8.72.8. In relation to noise and vibration matters affecting proposed dwellings, conditions are secured (conditions 20 and 21) and relate to both the construction stage and the design of residential properties. This is in the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
8.73. Noise and Other Amenity Issues Associated with Other Uses Within the Site
8.73.1. The proposed local centres include retail, restaurants and cafes, takeaways, public houses, commercial, leisure and community uses which have the potential to have an impact on the residential development, however this would obviously be dependent on the proposed use and detailed layouts.
8.73.2. It will be necessary to ensure that any building is appropriately designed to minimise noise break-out if appropriate and that odour emissions, size of unit, external plant and machinery are all suitably controlled. Conditions in this regard have been secured (39, 45 and 46).
Impact on Existing Dwellings
8.73.3. The existing farming activities on much of the site would generate some noise disturbance at certain times to all residential properties which bound the site. The proposed introduction of residential development on this site will clearly have an impact on neighbouring properties as a result of additional noise and disturbance that would be generated from new occupants and vehicle movements. However, there is not considered to be anything unusual about this particular edge of settlement development proposal that means that development could not be carried out without unacceptable levels of harm to the amenities of neighbouring residents, although it is acknowledged that residents would by virtue of the nature of development works, be impacted upon, to a degree.
8.73.4. A Construction Environmental Management Plan (amenity) secures timings for construction works, noise and vibration as well as procedures to maintaining good public relations and this is secured under conditions 5, 7 and 19.
Schools
8.73.5. During the course of the application the Land Use Parameter Plan has been amended to indicate the approximate location for the secondary school and primary schools; all three of which are now shown to the north of the B3400, increasing the distance between these and the noise source of the railway line. External noise levels in outdoor areas in schools should not exceed 55 dB L Aeq,30min and in addition at least one area suitable for outdoor teaching activities should be provided where noise levels are below 50 dB L Aeq,30min. The submitted Noise and Vibration Assessment confirms that in all of the potential school locations, it should be possible through orientation and siting of school buildings, environmental acoustic barriers or brick walls to design suitable external areas to meet these requirements. Taking all of the above into account with relevant conditions the application is considered to meet criterion (q) of Policy SS3.10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 2011-2029.
SS3.10 (r) Ensure adequate infrastructure is provided for sewerage (on and off site) and surface water drainage and produce a drainage strategy;
8.74. Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage
8.74.1. Local Plan Policy SS3.10(s) (Manydown), EM7 (Managing Flood Risk) and Development Principle 4k of the Manydown Development Brief requires that any application should demonstrate that groundwater and surface water is adequately protected to prevent a deterioration of water quality and pollution of the water source. Development should also demonstrate that it would minimise the risk of flooding on or off-site, utilising Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and careful land use planning.
8.74.2. The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy to support the submission. The site is located within a Flood Zone 1 therefore is considered to be at a very low risk of flooding from rivers. There is a history of groundwater flooding nearby in Buckskin, and development should demonstrate that it would not cause any off-site impacts to the satisfaction of the Environment Agency and the Lead Local Flood Authority.
8.74.3. Since the submission of the Flood Risk Assessment in February 2017 to support the application it has subsequently been updated to address some of the comments received. HCC and BDBC requested clarification on the validity of the methodology used to quantify the amount of infiltration estimated as a result of the Proposed Development.
8.74.4. The Manydown site comprises of two main elements with respect of the drainage strategy comprising of land to the north of Worting Road and to the south of Worting Road.
North of Worting Road
8.74.5. A series of Primary SuDS features are incorporated into the masterplan that will come forward as the development progresses. The primary SuDS features predominately act as long-term storage for the individual, but linked development plots. Storage is aimed specifically at runoff from extreme events to limit flood impact downstream. For the Main Street it is proposed that the SuDs system would be a primary network of linked SuDS devices to provide a drainage network from public open space, associated parking, footpaths, cycle links etc.
8.74.6. The HCC Flood and Water Management Team (FWM) has confirmed that the general principles of the proposed surface drainage strategy for the northern part of the site are acceptable. There are concerns however about the impact of groundwater that the applicant is required to investigate and is secured as part of conditions 5, 15 and 41. The infiltration rate and volume at the northern portion of the site will increase due to the proposed development and drainage methods.
8.74.7. In 2014 flooding occurred following groundwater emergence and was observed further downstream within Buckskin, Winklebury and Basingstoke Golf Centre. The groundwater emergence at these locations are believed to be fed by the groundwater flowing in an easterly and south-easterly direction to the north of Worting Road. The HCC FWM team had previously raised concerns that increased infiltration on the part of the site to the north of Worting Road may lead to an increased groundwater emergence and subsequent flooding at Winklebury and Basingstoke Golf Centre.
South of Worting Road
8.74.8. The ES confirms that as a result of the 2014 Buckskin flood event and the potential for the site south of Worting Road to impact the area of Buckskin as a result of the Proposed Development, the risk of groundwater flooding off-site is initially considered to be high. It is assumed that the site to the south of Worting Road will increase infiltration which would lead to an increase in groundwater emergence in Buckskin and a storm drainage strategy is required to demonstrate nil detriment. The LLFA as statutory consultee raised an objection during the first round of consultations however following further discussions, the FWM team has now confirmed that they raise no objection to the development subject to condition. This requires the applicant to provide a detailed and quantitative assessment of the Manydown development on the groundwater flooding at Buckskin and West Ham area demonstrating no increase in infiltration and surface water runoff as a result of the proposed development and nil detriment on the groundwater flooding at Buckskin and West Ham Area. This is secured under condition 5(f) Site Wide Surface Water Management Strategy, condition 15 Drainage and condition 16 Integrated Water Management Strategy. The ES confirms that subject to the implementation of such strategies the risk of risk of groundwater flooding both on and off site would be low.
8.75. Foul Drainage
8.75.1. The site sits at the watershed between areas managed by Southern Water to the south-west and Thames Water to the west. The proposed development will include a network of new foul sewers to manage the additional flows from the new land uses. The applicant has confirmed that consultation has been undertaken with Thames Water and this has confirmed that there is capacity for the foul sewers on the site to connect to existing wastewater treatment works at Whitmarsh Lane in Chineham. The ES confirms that wherever practicable the foul water network will utilise gravity drainage, but there will be areas of the site where pumping stations are required to transport flows to applicable treatment works.
8.75.2. Thames Water has confirmed that, “The magnitude of this development is such that significant wastewater network and treatment infrastructure upgrades will be required to accommodate the development.” This is reasonable and necessary and is secured as part of condition 7 (m) Key Phase Foul Water Drainage Strategy. This would include the requirement for a plan of the strategic foul water network to serve the key phase and the location of on-site primary infrastructure, including any pumping stations. Condition 16 secures further detail at Key Phase and/or reserved matters confirming what is required and when it is needed and will involve further consultation with Thames Water.
8.75.3. It is also relevant that all water utility companies have a legal obligation under the Water Industries Act 1991 to provide developers with the right to connect to a public sewer regardless of capacity issues. The Act also contains safeguards to ensure that flows resulting from new development do not cause detriment to the existing public sewerage networks by imposing a duty on sewerage undertakers to take the necessary action to carry out works to accommodate such flows into their networks.
8.76. Ground Water Source Protection
8.76.1. The site is in a sensitive location with regards to controlled waters. It is on unconfined chalk (principal aquifer). There are a number of public water supplies groundwater abstractions from the chalk aquifer in the area. A number of these abstraction have been identified as being sensitive to contamination from the surface. A large fraction of this site is within Source Protection Zone 2 (SPZ2). The Environment Agency has confirmed that if not managed correctly, infiltration drainage from areas such as roads and car parking can pose a risk to groundwater quality. This is particularly important for this site being over a principal aquifer and within a SPZ2. As such the EA welcome the inclusion of assessments (as per section 10.5.24 of the ES) of the potential impact from infiltration drainage to groundwater quality.
8.76.2. Policy EM6 (Water Quality) requires that in order to protect and improve water quality, potentially contaminating development proposals within Source Protection Zones will need to demonstrate that groundwater and surface water is adequately protected to prevent a deterioration of water quality and pollution of the water source. The site is located in Groundwater Source Protection Zones 2 and 3, and is a high sensitivity location with regards to the protection of water quality. It will be necessary to identify and mitigate any new sources, pathways or receptors for pollutants.
8.76.3. No specific contamination has been identified that is likely to pose a significant risk to controlled waters. It is noted that section 10.6.6 of the ES refers to the potential for future site investigations to be undertaken prior to development commencing. While there may not be the grounds to require additional site investigations from a controlled waters perspective, if previously unidentified contamination is encountered, then this could pose a risk to controlled waters. If any additional contamination is identified, the risk to controlled waters should be assessed and properly managed and is secured under condition 5 as part of the Key Phase Framework submission and condition 41 in relation to reserved matters.
8.76.4. The redundant and active aviation fuel pipes remain the most significant identified potential sources of contamination. The Environment Agency has noted that when sections have been investigated, no specific contamination has been identified from these pipelines. However, as with any long linear potential sources, it is very hard to verify that the entire length of the pipeline is completely free from contamination. As such a careful watching brief must be maintained during any work near this these pipelines, for any evidence of contamination. If at any point there are proposals to remove redundant sections of the pipeline then the EA request to be consulted for pollution prevention advice, and consultation on measures to ensure no residual contamination risk to controlled waters. Condition 43 has been recommended.
8.76.5. The Environment Agency has also confirmed that they welcome the proposed stand off areas around the pipelines; pilling, ground improvement or other deep foundation in the general vicinity of the pipes, could potentially pose integrity implications (i.e. through vibrations). This could potentially result in contamination issues if any integrity is compromised. The matters set out in relation to the pipelines as a possible source of contamination are secured under condition 43.
8.77. Nitrate Neutrality in relation to the Solent
8.77.1. This proposal relates to residential development and therefore there is a requirement for an assessment of water quality impacts of the operational phase of the development on the designated sites. The covering letter supporting the latest submission of documents (December 2019) confirms that waste water from the proposed development will be directed to Chineham waste water treatment works, which ultimately discharges to the Thames river system.
8.77.2. Wootton St Lawrence Parish Council has questioned the drainage and SuDs proposals and the conclusion made by the applicant in relation to the effect on Nitrate Limits. These comments are noted however it is also relevant that Natural England has confirmed that a nutrient loading budget is not required to support the application with regards to impacts on Solent European protected sites.
8.77.3. Taking all of the above into account with conditions it is considered that the development is acceptable when considered against criterion (r) of Policy SS3.10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan.
SS.310 (s) Ensure that it does not prejudice the integration of future development at Manydown beyond the plan period. The policy map indicates the area subject to wider masterplanning;
8.77.4. The Local Plan proposals map identifies an area largely to the south of the current allocation which is referenced as “Remaining Manydown Area in land ownership, within which wider masterplanning will take place (Policy SS3.10)”. The area is identified as a spatial extent but no suggestion is provided within the current Local Plan as to the acceptability of the site in planning terms for development, an anticipated level of development or land uses. While that site has now been proposed within the SHELAA decisions around whether it is taken forward in a future Local Plan will be decided within the next Local Plan Review.
8.77.5. Development Principle 2(f) of the Manydown Development Brief SPD sets out that:
“The design of the site should incorporate sufficient flexibility to allow additional highway capacity to be created at a later date, if required. This future-proofing should be balanced with the impact upon character and the development’s placeshaping objectives.”
8.77.6. The remainder of Principle 2(f) then focuses on the importance of the potential for a railway crossing, the detail of which is covered under criterion (m) above.
8.77.7. In relation to the current application consideration can be given to the types of issues where the physical impact of the development proposed gives rise to potentially preventing future development of the area subject to wider masterplanning either directly through physical linkages or indirectly through impact, for example, on infrastructure and transport.
8.77.8. With regards to physical linkages the area subject to wider masterplanning adjoins Parcel 6A, which is within the allocation but not the current application. As such there is a physical separation between the application site and the masterplanning area. The development proposed through the Building Heights and Density Parameter Plan does not provide any form of development that could not be integrated to future adjoin development. The Parameter plan provides for a variation across the site and a lowering of densities towards the development edges. A continuation of this approach for the wider masterplanning area could ensure a consistency towards the western edge of Basingstoke, for example, such that development there could be integrated with the current proposed development.
8.77.9. In relation to transport it has already been set out above what is required for the purposes of the link road under section (m).
SS3.10 (t) On the land south of the railway line and north of Pack Lane, development will be limited to a yield of up to 300 units, unless workable transport mitigation measures can be demonstrated to support a higher yield.
8.77.10. The application site does not include the land to the south of the railway line and north of Pack Lane and therefore this is not applicable to this current application.
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
8.78. Impact on Character of the Area
8.78.1. Beyond the specific criteria of Policy SS3.10 it is also necessary to consider the impact of the development more generally in relation to the character of surrounding development and countryside. The Parameter Plan proposes development up to 18m in height to the top of the roof in the eastern Neighbourhood Centre and up to 15m to the top of the roof in the western Neighbourhood Centre with lower buildings of up to 10m in height in the lower density edges of the development. A range of housing densities is proposed from 15 dwellings per hectare (dph) on the countryside edges up to 60 units per hectare at the eastern Centre. The Urban Design Officer has confirmed that they are satisfied that these parameters meet the terms of Development Principle 5b ‘Character Areas’ of the Development Brief SPD. This requires the development to have a scale of typically 2 and sometimes 3 storeys in residential areas, typically 3-4 storeys in centres and higher density Character Areas, and with 5 storeys only exceptionally permitted in key locations.
8.78.2. These measures successfully provide for a development of varied character with a sensitive relationship to the site’s topography and the surrounding area. The higher densities and heights around the two Centres with their retail, community and employment uses, will aid sustainable transport patterns. They will also provide for the denser and legible building patterns associated with mixed use centres.
8.78.3. The DAS explains how these height parameters meet the requirements of the Development Brief: each storey height is assumed to be up to 3m and once the height of a roof space is added, then these heights do correlate with the numbers of storeys cited in the Development Brief. The Parameter Plan also restricts the proportion of development which can be of a taller scale in each height and density ‘zone’. For example, at the eastern Centre, the Plan requires that “no more than 20% of the built development in this parcel should above 15m in height (up to 4 storeys) from ground level up to the top of the roof”. In respect of the eastern and western Centres, the heights also take account of the potential for deeper, commercial ground floors which will limit the number of storeys which can be accommodated above them. These measures give confidence that the eventual height of many of the buildings, as established in future stages such as the preparation of design codes and reserved matters, has the potential to respond sensitively to the environmental constraints of the site and its surroundings and the need for high quality placemaking.
8.78.4. The Building Heights and Density Parameter plan shows a variation in building heights and density. Taller and denser development is proposed around the Neighbourhood Centres and Main Street, and lower and less dense development in sensitive areas such as around Worting Conservation Area and on the edges bordering Roman Road, the countryside and the Country Park. This Plan provides a suitable framework to enable the requirements of Development Principle 5b ‘Character Areas’ of the Development Brief SPD to be met in due course.
8.78.5. There are a number of areas where the Parameter Plan proposes certain heights and densities which have the potential to affect the setting and character of sensitive areas. An example of this is the zone shown in orange with horizontal black stripes limiting buildings up to 13m high and 60 dph along the northern side of Worting Road just west of Scrapps Hill on the western approach to Worting village. One implication of this designation is that buildings may be proposed in due course whose height and density is high and leans towards the upper end of this parameter. This has the potential to lend this area too urban an appearance to the detriment of the character and separate identity of Worting. Another example could be the large area around the eastern Neighbourhood Centre, shown in purple, allowing buildings up to 15m in height (with 20% of them up to 18m in height) and a density of up to 60 dph. This could lend a highly urbanised appearance to a large area around 500m long and 250m wide. This could weaken the potential to create a place at Manydown whose core identity could evolve to be less urbanised.
8.78.6. However, the Urban Design Officer remains satisfied that any planning permission could incorporate measures which will require these building height and density parameters to be interpreted in a suitably responsive manner. The heights and densities cited are maximum parameters. The specific heights and locations of taller buildings will be defined at the later design code stage. This retains the ability to require the maximum height and density of buildings to only be reached in some localised areas if the character and environmental constraints of the area require it. For example, the edge of development closest to the boundary with the Worting Farm Cottages is shown as a line. While the approval of the Parameter Plans through this outline application would allow for development up to this point and at the maximum heights shown, it will be possible to get greater clarity and request further details to show how this sensitive edge would be suitably designed through Condition 5. This includes the requirement for details of the design framework of the interface between the Country Park edge and the development site to inform the relevant Key Phase and reserved matters submissions.
8.78.7. This development will clearly result in a significant change from existing the existing landscape character. The NPPF requires that new development gives regard to its setting and responds positively to the character of the area. Paragraph 124 of the NPPF confirms that, “The creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities.” The NPPF also requires that development is, “ sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities)”.
8.78.8. Policy EM10 of the BDLP requires that proposals are informed by the local context in terms of design and siting and reinforce attractive qualities of local distinctiveness. Policy EM1 of the BDLP also requires proposals to be sympathetic to the landscape character and scenic quality of an area and sit consistent with objectives of the NPPF to protect environmental value from significant or demonstrable harm. With the appropriate conditions as recommended it is considered that the current outline application meets these requirements.
8.79. Impact on Trees
8.79.1. The site includes a mature tree stock that reflects its agricultural heritage and land use. The majority of trees surveyed as part of the application submission were large native or naturalised broadleaves dominated by pedunculate oak and including common ash, sycamore, field maple, common beech, sweet chestnut and lime species. Smaller ornamental trees (native and non-native) recorded on or outside but within influencing distance of the study area include hazel, hawthorn, larch, cypress species, blackthorn, flowering and wild cherry, walnut and yew.
8.79.2. The application is supported by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment which identified 296 individual trees (T1-T296); 125 groups of trees (G1-G125); and 5 woodland compartments (W1-W5). A schedule of all trees and groups in terms of species, condition, age, management recommendations and BS 5837:2012 quality categories is provided within document MSD12n: Arboriculture Appendix 9.3.
8.79.3. Seven trees have been identified within the site as being of veteran status with the majority of these located around Worting Wood Farm. The NPPF defines ancient and veteran trees as: “A tree which, because of its age, size and condition, is of exceptional biodiversity, cultural or heritage value.” Standing Advice notes that a veteran tree may not be very old but have decay features such as branch death and hollowing. These features contribute to its biodiversity, cultural and heritage value. The BDBC Tree Officer confirms that, “In general, veteran trees are also more sensitive to root disturbance and changes to their growing environment with a lower ability to adapt compared to younger, more vigorous trees. The current road and housing layout has the potential to impact on the existing rooting system by compacting or raising the soil level around the tree and suffocating the roots and reducing the amount of available nutrients. Both could lead to a detrimental effect on the long term vitality of these trees. There is a particular concern in relation to the proximity of new roads and housing to veteran trees T45 and T117. T45 is a mature walnut tree located to the northern boundary of Worting Wood Farm. T117 is a field maple which is set within a group of trees adjoining the southeastern tip of Worting Wood. The BDBC Tree Officer has assessed the development proposal and confirmed that the successful integration of a new development scheme depends on, “the selection of appropriate trees for retention, informed layout design, and careful implementation”. There is also a presumption for the retention of category A and B trees, as assessed in accordance with BS5837. The strategy for the successful development of the site around Veteran trees and other important features on the site would be progressed as part of the Site Wide Framework and would then inform the relevant reserved matters submission.
Ancient Woodland
8.79.4. The ecological impacts on ancient woodland are discussed under criterion (k). The BDBC Tree Officer has commented that there is no indication within the submission of the buffers to be provided along the boundary with Worting Wood and Wootton Copse. The Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees SPD includes the requirement for greater buffer distances for woodland, with an expectation that buffers will exceed 20m. The Tree Officer considers that in order to reduce the potential impacts of the development on these trees it is considered necessary that the detailed design should afford a minimum 20m buffer from the edge of the canopy in all directions to avoid any potential significant impacts that could result in decline and ultimate loss. Whilst these comments and the aims of the SPD are an important consideration it is possible that there are certain instances along the ancient woodland boundary that a full 20m buffer is not required. It may also be the case that at certain points within the site that more than 20m is eventually necessary. The justification for any variance in buffers widths would be secured as part of the Site Wide Framework Submission which includes the requirement for an Urban Design Framework of the interface with the Country Park to be approved, as well as a Site Wide Ecological Mitigation and Management Strategy including buffers and woodlands.
8.79.5. The development would also result in additional pressures on the ancient woodlands as a result of the additional population, the proximity of the woodlands to the development and the inclusion of two of the woodlands into the Country Park. The ES supports limiting pedestrian activity within these areas to the existing Public Right Of Way (PROW) and a small number of clearly defined footpath routes carefully located through these woodlands. The details for movement and access within the Country Park, including the Ancient Woodland areas would be provided as part of the Country Park Development Brief secured as part of Condition 5.
New Accesses
8.79.6. The creation of the accesses would result in the loss of a number of trees and significant lengths of hedging. This is particularly in relation to the B3400 access and the A339. The visual and landscape impact of this is considered under criterion (g).
8.79.7. The revised access on the B3400 will require the removal of a mature beech (T163), a mature oak (T164) and a group of yew trees (G54). These trees are prominent in the landscape and their retention would assist in reducing the impact of this new access on the character of the B3400. The BDBC Tree Officer has advised that the trees have been categorised as A and B status under the British Standard 5837 and therefore other solutions such as crown lifting rather than their removal should be explored. The ES confirms that an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) should be produced detailing the required tree pruning, road construction and working methods to ensure root loss and canopy removal is kept to minimum on the retained features. In addition, site-wide tree protection measures will be required during construction to deliver the tree retention schedule presented in the AMS. This will include temporary protective barrier fencing to demarcate a Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ) around retained trees. This must be put in place prior to the commencement of any development works, including bringing machinery or materials onto site, the erection of site huts or demolition. The alignment and specification of tree protection fencing should be included as part of an AMS and this requirement is secured under conditions 33 and 34.
8.79.8. The Section 106 includes obligations for woodland management plans and tree works plans, in addition to open space management plans, to be approved prior to the commencement of the relevant phases of the development, thus giving the LPA control over the impact of development on the woodland areas. The LPA can also control development through the determination of subsequent Key Phase and reserved matters applications. The existing trees and woodlands are also mapped on the submitted tree survey, giving the Council a record to assess any future reserved matters application against.
8.80. Construction Access Routes
8.80.1. The Outline Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) supporting the application explains how construction activities can be undertaken in accordance with the EIA and aims to demonstrate how it is proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the likely adverse impacts of construction on environmental resources, local residents and businesses.
8.80.2. Given the outline nature of this application, the document is designed to provide a framework to inform a Construction Phase Plan and updates to the CEMP to ensure that construction activities are suitably managed. The indicative housing delivery described by the applicant assumes a maximum construction rate of an average of approximately 320 dwellings per year.
8.80.3. The CEMP sets out that, “There are four assumed strategic construction access routes for all phases of the development and one access route that would only be used until an on-site construction haul road is completed. It is envisaged that the haul road would link a junction on the B3400 Worting Road to a junction at the northern end Roman Road. These routes have been identified to cover the most direct potential approach directions from the main routes into Basingstoke (A339, A33 and M3). The A30 via Junction 7 of the M3 has been excluded to avoid construction traffic passing through areas of south-western Basingstoke:
All phases - Westbound from the motorway: M3 (Junction 6) / A339 Ringway North / new northern Site entrance All phases - Northbound from the motorway: M3 (Junction 6) / A339 Ringway North / new northern Site entrance All phases - Eastbound: A339 Kingsclere Road / new northern Site entrance All phases - Southbound from Reading: A33 / A339 Ringway North / new northern Site entrance Phase 1A/1B until the on-site haul road is constructed: A339 Ringway North / Roman Road / B3400 Worting Road / new southern Site entrance.”
It should be noted that conditions 19 and 26 are relevant in relation to construction and the provision of details to demonstrate the best practicable means for reducing the effects of noise, vibration and dust on neighbouring properties.
8.81. Impact on Existing Residential Amenity
8.81.1. Policy EM10 states that developments will be permitted where they positively contribute to the appearance and use of streets and where they are accessible to all. The policy also requires respect for the local environment and amenities of neighbouring properties and goes on to state the need to positively contribute to local distinctiveness, have due regard to the history of the surrounding area and heritage assets, are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and provide appropriate waste and recycling facilities.
Rooksdown
8.81.2. The tree and landscape impacts which would result from the changes to the existing highway on the A339 to create the northern access into the site are considered under criterion (g).
8.81.3. Some of the dwellings to the north of the A339 at Gander Drive and Barron Place and Saxon Wood Special School are close to the proposed northern access. The proposal would not bring the highway significantly closer than the existing situation but would introduce a new roundabout feature resulting in the loss of screening provided by the trees and planting along the existing highway boundary. This road is already a busy route between Basingstoke and Newbury and whilst the layout of the road would change, it is not considered that this would significantly alter the existing amenity that the school and dwellings currently benefit from. In relation to the residential development proposed, the built form in the northern part of the site would be set behind an area of Strategic Multi Functional Green Space and the potential location for allotments and it is considered that development could be successfully accommodated without detriment to the amenities of those north of the A339.
Roman Road
8.81.4. The Parameter Plans demonstrate that would be a sufficient distance between the nearest existing residential properties on Roman Road and the new built form to enable development to be accommodated without significant adverse impacts of overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing. The specific detail of this would be considered at reserved matters stage when detailed layout and design proposals are put forward.
8.81.5. Concern has also been raised by the occupants of a number of dwellings in Roman Road and other parts of Winklebury in relation to the impact of the development on views as a result of the change from agricultural fields to residential development. The outlook from the existing properties bounding the site would change as a result of this proposal however the change to an existing view is not a material planning consideration. It is also relevant that for a significant number of the Roman Road properties, views across the road towards the Manydown development would be softened by the linear park feature to created adjacent to this boundary.
8.81.6. At the point where the primary access would be constructed onto Roman Road this benefit would be reduced although the Central Neighbourhood Park that is identified on the Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan would sit on either side of this access providing a suitable transition from Roman Road into the development area beyond.
8.81.7. A secondary access is also proposed onto Roman Road. This does not form one of the accesses for approval at outline stage however the indicative location for which is shown to the north of the Arundel Gardens access onto Roman Road and opposite the open space and footpath leading from Roman Road towards Oaklands Way and Dunsford Crescent. Issues relating to the impact of this access on neighbouring amenity will be dealt with at reserved matters stage when the detailed layout and design would be considered.
Worting Wood Farm Cottages
8.81.8. There are three existing cottages, 1 and 2 Worting Wood Cottages and 3 Worting Wood Farm which sit on either side of the existing farm track (PROW) from Worting Wood Farm to Roman Road. These properties sit outside of the application site boundary but are surrounded by it. There is also a two storey farmhouse within the application site at Worting Wood Farm.
8.81.9. The illustrative master plan and parameter plans indicate that there would be a minimum distance of approximately 10 metres to the closest residential properties; the dwellings at Worting Wood Farm. Although these residential properties are outside of the application site boundary they would be surrounded by both residential development and the Country Park hub. The Buildings Heights and Density parameter plan indicates that the building heights adjacent the cottage to the south known as 3 Worting Wood Farm would be no taller than 15m in height and with a density of 40-60 dwellings per hectare. The pair of semi- detached dwellings to the north of the PROW leading through Worting Wood Farm (1 and 2 Worting Wood Cottages) would be adjoining a development area where dwellings are no taller than 13 metres in height (up to 3 storeys) with a density range of between 30 and 40 dwellings per hectare.
8.81.10. The construction of the Manydown development would impact on the occupants of these dwellings, particularly any development relating to the Country Park Hub and the development of the housing in close proximity to these dwellings. Given the outline nature of this application there is little detail on the exact nature of the development to come forward adjacent to these properties. The applicants propose to implement a new landscape buffer along part of the boundary with these private properties (along the existing PROW) comprising broadleaf and evergreen tree species and have confirmed that the purpose of which is to reduce the visual effects arising from the proposed development on these residential properties. This would assist in reducing the impact along this route however there is the wider impact of the proposed housing on these dwellings which could be considered in more detail as part of the interface between the development and the Site Wide Urban Design Framework for the Country Park and subsequent Key Phase submission. Subject to suitable design it is considered that the development could be accommodated in a manner that respects the amenities of these existing neighbouring properties.
8.81.11. The updated predicted increase in noise levels at Worting Wood Farm (5.6dB) is greater than the previous ES chapter (3.9 dB). This increase has amended the predicted significance of impact from minor adverse in the previous ES chapter to moderate adverse in this Addendum, which is considered to be a significant effect. The modelled noise levels do not however include the attenuating effect of new buildings between Main Street and this receptor. The positioning of the proposed buildings between the road and this receptor would provide screening of road traffic noise. With the screening effects of new built development, a minor adverse effect is considered to be likely, which is not significant for the purposes of the EIA.
8.81.12. The Environmental Health Officer has suggested conditions in respect of hours of construction and hours of deliveries associated with construction works. These are incorporated within the requirement for a Construction Environmental Management Plan (Amenity) in Conditions 5, 7 and 19. If any undue disturbance were to be created during building works that was of such significance that it were to cause a nuisance, this would be addressed through the provisions of environmental protection legislation. Nevertheless, the test of whether unacceptable harm would be caused to amenity is a lesser test than that of nuisance and therefore conditions to ensure that works and deliveries are restricted in terms of their time are considered to be reasonable and necessary and are included under Conditions 5, 7 and 19. Having regard to all of these matters and relevant conditions it is considered that the development accords with Policy EM10 relating to impact on amenity.
8.82. Contaminated Land
The CEMP supporting the application confirms that the assessment of ground conditions on the site has not indicated significant potential for contamination. Given the existing use of the land and the nature of the proposed development, the construction phases have the potential to disturb or expose any contamination that is present. The Environmental Health Officer considers that due to the agricultural use of the land and the former farm buildings, a condition requiring a full contaminated land survey to be submitted prior to works commencing on site would be required. Bearing in mind the site will be constructed in phases and different parts of the site may be affected in different ways, a contaminated land report for each phase of the development is considered reasonable (see conditions 24 and 25).
8.83. Loss of Agricultural Land
8.83.1. The Environmental Statement confirms that the proposed development would involve approximately 274 hectares of ‘best and most versatile’ (Grades 1 to 3a) agricultural land. This has been assessed as a substantial significant impact at the site level but when compared to the known agricultural land resource at borough and county level, this total is not considered to be significant based on the criteria described in chapter 10 of the ES.
8.83.2. Agricultural Land in England and Wales is graded according to quality from 1-5. Grade 1 is excellent quality with very minor or no limitations to agricultural use and Grade 5 very poor quality. Grades 1, 2 and 3a in the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system is the most versatile agricultural land. There are no specific policies in the Local Plan relating to the development of agricultural land, however there is a footnote to paragraph 171 of the NPPF which states,
‘Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality.’
8.83.3. The loss of good quality agricultural land considered by the Local Plan Inspector in the allocation of the site through the Examination process in 2016 with the Inspector’s Report confirming:
“The loss of some good quality agricultural land is recognised in the overall balancing exercise…However, this is not highlighted as a negative impact and I consider that some loss of agricultural land is inevitable if the Borough is to address its objectively assessed development needs.”
There has been no material change to this position.
8.84. Re-use of Soils
8.84.1. Soil profiles would be restored within those areas covered by open spaces and gardens but the land use itself would no longer be classed as agricultural. Significantly, development of agricultural land, where demonstrated to be necessary, should utilise areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality. The land is BMVAL and the resultant loss is a matter that weighs against the scheme. Best and Most Versatile Land is a finite resource and the NPPF makes it clear that the economic and other benefits of such land must be weighed in the balance. The economic and social benefits of development at Manydown are clearly set out in the Local Plan. The loss of BMVAL would, at worst, be modest, taking into account the general quality of agricultural land across the country. Nonetheless, it would be a dis-benefit of the proposal that must be weighed into the overall balance of the decision taking account of the circumstances, as the site is a strategic allocation essential to deliver the required housing provision and employment opportunities. When compared to the known resource of best and most versatile at borough and county level this impact is not considered to be significant. The ES has confirmed that there is estimated to be approximately 330,000 m3 of topsoil on the site, which is a valuable resource. A Materials Management Plan should be provided as part of the submission under the Key Phase Sustainability Strategy to ensure that as much of the topsoil on the site can be beneficially re-used, for example in areas of parks, playing fields and residential gardens.
8.84.2. Natural England has responded to the proposed development and confirmed that a condition to submit a soil management plan is appropriate.
8.84.3. It is acknowledged that at the site wide level, the proposed development will result in the loss of a significant amount of agricultural land however when compared to the known agricultural land resource at borough and county level, this total is not considered to be significant based on the criteria described in chapter 10 of the ES. On this basis and given the allocation of the site in the Local Plan for the provision of a significant amount of housing for the borough, the loss of this agricultural land is considered acceptable.
8.85. Utilities
8.85.1. The application confirms that diversions will be required for existing overhead electricity and telecommunications services and new buried infrastructure for these services would be installed along roads within the proposed development. Consultation by the applicant with the statutory utility providers has confirmed that off-site reinforcements will be required for high voltage electricity supply and for mains water but will not be required for gas or telecommunications. Relevant approval for reinforcements will be obtained by the respective utilities and do not form part of this outline planning application.
Pipelines
8.85.2. There is an active aviation fuel pipeline running through the site in a north-south orientation and an additional inactive fuel pipeline to the west. There is a 3 metre development easement on either side of the centre of the pipeline. Whilst concern has been raised in letters of representation about the health and safety implications of development occurring in proximity to this feature, the applicant has confirmed that the Health and Safety Executive do not consider the pipeline to represent a ‘major accident hazard’ pipeline and no objections have been received from the pipeline operator.
8.85.3. There is also an SGN gas main which runs from the northeast corner of the site westwards, crossing the lane known as Wootton One Mile to the south of the cemetary and continuing westwards. Safe digging practices, in accordance with HSE publication HSG47 “Avoiding Danger from Underground Services” must be used to verify and establish the actual position of mains, pipes, services and other apparatus on site before any mechanical plant is used and an informative in this regard has been added.
8.86. Waste and Resource Management
Construction
8.86.1. The application is supported by a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which confirms that a Construction Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) will be submitted alongside a Key Phase CEMP. This aims to ensure that reasonable steps are taken to reduce the amount of waste produced on the site during the construction period and that developers ensure that they have considered the implications of the design and materials to minimise the amount of waste. The applicant is also bound by separate legislation covering waste under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991.
Residential Properties
8.86.2. In Hampshire at the present time, the average household generate approximately one tonne of waste per year. The County Council has previously suggested that it would be seeking a 1.5ha site to be secured via s106 legal agreement for a new waste infrastructure facility to be provided within the Manydown site. This is not being progressed as part of the s106 as there is no Local Plan policy to support the HCC request.
8.86.3. Policy EM10 of the Local Plan requires development to provide appropriate internal and external waste and recycling storage areas and accessible collection points for refuse vehicles. The BDBC Design and Sustainability SPD Appendix 3 – Storage and Collection of Waste and Recycling provides specific guidance on what needs to be considered and provided for in new development schemes.
8.86.4. The applicant has confirmed they seek to work with the Joint Waste Client Team to ensure that waste and recycling provision meets council requirements and this will progress as part of the Key Phase Framework and Reserved Matters stages.
8.87. Early Years – Nursery and Pre-school Provision
8.87.1. The need to make provision for Child Care and Early Years facilities is agreed between the applicant and HCC however the exact details and specifications for this provision would be agreed as part of the s106 agreement. The Manydown Development Brief SPD recognises the issue in terms of deficit of facilities in western Basingstoke and specifically states that: “Whilst the provision of social and community infrastructure within Manydown should principally be focussed on addressing the needs of that development, it is encouraged that any detailed proposals for the size, type and location of social and community infrastructure should explain how they may have regard to meeting and complementing the needs of western Basingstoke.” The s106 is being progressed based on marketing of a total of 360 day nursery places. As part of the Development Brief the application also proposes 4 x 30 pre-school places.
8.87.2. HCC has confirmed during one of the previous consultation responses that there must be at least one 70 place provision and 30 place preschool offered in the early build phase to ensure childcare is available in the early occupation phases as there is very limited provision in the immediate vicinity of the site. The triggers for these are being discussed as part of the s106 negotiations.
8.88. Air Quality
8.88.1. Air quality is used to describe how polluted the air is. One of these known pollutants is Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). NO2 in built up areas is caused by vehicle emissions. In Basingstoke, Nitrogen Dioxide levels have been monitored by the LPA at different locations using diffusion tubes. In proximity to the Manydown site, the LPA undertook NO2 monitoring in 3 locations along Roman Road in November 2017; close to Worting Road, mid-point and in the northern part.
8.88.2. The National Air Quality Objectives set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) set the definitive parameters in relation to levels that ought not be exceeded for local air quality. Current medical research suggests that at even below the National Air Quality Objectives (NAQO) there will still be adverse health effects and there is no safe limit for particulate matter. With this in mind exposure to pollutants should be kept as low as possible. This is in line with the revised guidance contained within NPPF 2019 (Section 181).
8.88.3. Development Principle 4l of the Manydown Development Brief requires that, “New development should not have a detrimental impact upon the quality of life of existing residents in relation to noise and air quality exposure. In addition, residents of new development should not be exposed to existing sources of noise or air-pollution that would have a detrimental impact upon quality of life. In particular, the design and location of sensitive uses should take into account the transport infrastructure including the railway line, the A339, the B3400, and the new link road, and noise issues arising from any proposed commercial/retail/entertainment uses in the centres.”
8.88.4. The ES Chapter on Air Quality was revised in December 2019 and in relation to existing local air quality conditions continues to use 2015 baseline monitoring data as it presents a worse-case scenario for the site; “as later data shows lower concentrations of background emissions.”
8.88.5. The assessment of traffic related impacts uses 2019 which the ES confirms was the anticipated year of first occupation of dwellings on site. The NPPF confirms that “likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or wider area to impacts that could arise from the development” should be taken into account.
8.88.6. The BDBC Environment and Health Officer has confirmed that they have reviewed the application and in relation to noise and air quality, their comments are based on the HCC Highways team endorsement of the submitted TA and confirmation that the submitted traffic data is robust. This confirmation has been received.
8.88.7. The Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that they are in agreement with the methodology used to assess the air quality impacts of the proposed development within the ES.
8.88.8. The Air Quality Impact Assessment considers two scenarios;
i) the main assessment where the majority of the traffic not directly associated with the proposed development (e.g. traffic that currently travels between Oakley and the A339, via Roman Road or other routes) uses the new Main Street; and ii) scenario 2A where 50% of the background traffic will chose to use the longer route via the B3400 Worting Road / Churchill Way West / Ringway West.
8.88.9. In the main assessment, several of the receptor locations have a slight adverse impact for NO2 levels and one has a moderate adverse impact. All predicted impacts from particulates are negligible. The air quality impact relates to the percentage change in concentration relative to the air quality objective.
8.88.10. If the modelled 2A scenario was to happen, there would be no change for the majority of receptors, and there would be a predicted reduction in NO2 concentrations for receptors along the A339 to the east of the Roman Road junction. The impacts at receptor R9 (A339 west of the Roman Road junction) are predicted to increase from slight adverse to moderate adverse. All predicted impacts from particulates remain negligible. Some of these increased impacts are due to the widening of the carriageway bringing the source of pollution (traffic) closer to the receptor. The Environmental Health team has confirmed that it is their recommendation that wherever possible the distance between the source and the receptor is increased to reduce the impact to negligible however there is no guidance on a specific distance threshold. It is also relevant that the predicted nitrogen dioxide levels in both scenarios remain substantially below the national air quality objective and all predicted impacts from particulates are negligible. The approach is therefore considered robust in demonstrating acceptable impacts.
On site Layout
8.88.11. The Land Use Parameter Plan and Building Heights and Densities Parameter Plan indicates that the Primary and Secondary Street zone would sit immediately adjacent to the zone for residential development and the three Neighbourhood Parks. Rows of tall buildings can create what is referred to as a ‘street canyon’ which can trap traffic pollutants and limit their dispersal. Concern has been raised by the Environmental Health Team in relation to the potential for a street canyon effect along Main Street. It is considered that appropriate conditions securing design and layout principles will prevent this happening for design based reasons in any case, but the following reports what is considered a robust position for testing.
8.88.12. The Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) (2017) Land-Use Planning & Development Control: Planning for Air Quality recommends that new development should not create a street canyon as this inhibits pollution dispersion.
8.88.13. The application is supported by an Air Quality Assessment which has considered street canyon effect. This is demonstrated by the modelled concentration for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) at receptor I. In the non- street canyon model the NO2 level (worst case scenario) is 17.5mg/m3. In the street canyon model this increases to 34.4mg/m3.
8.88.14. The latter level is approaching the National Air Quality Objective (NAQO) annual mean of 40mg/m3. Given that poor air quality is the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK it must be ensured that new development does not expose future residents to elevated levels of pollution. Section 181 of the NPFF 2019 states: “Opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts should be identified, such as through traffic and travel management, and green infrastructure provision and enhancement. So far as possible these opportunities should be considered at the planmaking stage, to ensure a strategic approach and limit the need for issues to be reconsidered when determining individual applications”.
8.88.15. Particulate matter has also been assessed. This is classified according to its size. The available evidence suggests that it is fine particulates which have a diameter of PM2.5 μg or less and formed by combustion, that are the main cause of the harmful effects of particulate matter.
8.88.16. Predicted PM2.5 μg/m3 concentrations are above the WHO annual mean limit of 10mg/m3. Whilst this limit is currently not legally binding in England, the government have committed in the new Air Quality Strategy to the UK long-term objective of meeting the WHO PM2.5 objective of 10ug/m3. Defra’s Air Quality Strategy states:
“We will set a new, ambitious, long-term target to reduce people’s exposure to PM2.5 and will publish evidence early in 2019 to examine what action would be needed to meet the WHO annual mean guideline limit of 10 μg/m3. By implementing the policies in this strategy, we will reduce PM2.5 concentrations across the UK, so that the number of people living in locations above the WHO guideline level of 10 μg/m3 is reduced by 50% by 2025”.
8.88.17. Given this commitment the Environmental Health team has confirmed that they would like to see the development promote mitigation measures to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and other air pollutants associated with the development which accords with the Government's aim to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides against the 2005 baseline by 55% by 2020, increasing to 73% by 2030.
Construction Phase
8.88.18. The ES confirms that in relation to air quality, measures will be required during the construction phase of the proposed development to mitigate dust emissions on nearby sensitive receptors. A set of measures has been identified that should be incorporated into the construction methodology including, site management, dust monitoring, communications, site preparation and maintenance, operations and waste management. Given the size of the site, a dust management plan is also required to form part of the CEMP (amenity) and is secured under Conditions 5, 7 and 19.
8.89. Public Health
Consideration has been given to travel, including walking and cycling, between Manydown and destinations in Basingstoke such as the Leisure Park and Winklebury which has been welcomed by HCC. Measures to improve accessibility by non-car transport modes are considered in criterion (o).
8.90. Section 106 Agreement/Infrastructure
8.90.1. As set out above a number of issues need to be secured within the s106 Agreement. The main thrust of the requirements stem from the Infrastructure Delivery Strategy (IDS) (MSD8R) which was revised in July 2018. The purpose of the IDS is to set out what infrastructure is required to support the Manydown development and when the infrastructure is likely to be needed.
8.90.2. Since the application was submitted, the Council has adopted the Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD which sits alongside the BDBC Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule and Regulation 123 List. Manydown lies within CIL Charging Zone 1 which has a zero charge.
8.90.3. The strategic on site infrastructure comprises of the following:
• Land reserved for a secondary school up to 12FE • 1x 2FE primary school with land reserved for expansion to 3FE • 1x 3FE primary school • 4x 70 nursery places • 4x 30 pre-school places • A main community building • 2x satellite community facilities • Land reserved for a potential Health Centre • An indoor sports hall • Sports Hub Pavilion • 1x 3G artificial pitch, with floodlighting • 4x outdoor grass playing pitches, no floodlighting, and changing facilities • 4x tennis courts/ MUGA • Country Park • Allotments • 5 permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches on one site for Gypsy and Traveller families
In addition to the above infrastructure the s106 will deal with legal matters such as the need for a confirmatory deed to bind the freehold owner (see Condition 50) as well as the intent for a Planning Performance Agreement to be entered into between the applicant, LPA and Highway Authority in progressing the post outline stages. All of the requirements of the s106 agreement are considered to meet the tests set out in the NPPF and relevant Local Plan policies.
8.91. Other matters
The Local Plan sets out a clear economic strategy positively encouraging sustainable economic growth and recognising the need to support programmes of skills development to assist the local workforce. Policy EP1 (Economic Growth and Investment) provides the planning policy framework for this aspiration. As part of the s106 the applicant is required to provide an Employment and Skills Plan (ESP) in order to achieve social and economic objectives relating to education and skills, in accordance with guidance set by the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) National Skills Academy for Construction, Client Based Approach (or equivalent). This would be informed by the local priorities for employment and skills activity, to include Apprenticeships, Traineeships, Work Experience opportunities and Careers Activities with local schools.
Community Engagement
The applicant has provided a Statement of Community Involvement that sets out that on-going engagement and communication has been undertaken during the course of the application. Following the submission, further post-submission newsletters were distributed in August 2018 and January 2019 and sent to approximately 51,000 properties in Basingstoke.
Factsheets were also produced and made available on the Manydown Project website as well as public consultation events including drop in sessions for young people on how the Country Park could evolve and place making workshops.
8.92. Conclusion
8.92.1. At the current time the council is unable to demonstrate that it has 5 years’ worth of deliverable sites. This means that policies relating to housing delivery in the Local Plan and made Neighbourhood Plans are currently considered to be ‘out of date’.
8.92.2. Planning applications will therefore be considered in line with paragraph 11 of the NPPF which states that where relevant policies are considered out of date permission will be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.
8.92.3. There is a clear presumption in favour of sustainable development set out within the NPPF. Taking account of the detailed assessment set out above when considered against the social, environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability, the proposal is considered to be a sustainable form of development providing a considerable number of benefits including delivering housing in the short term and therefore contributing towards the 5 year land supply position, which is a clear benefit of the scheme. The site is identified within the local plan greenfield site allocation (Policy SS3) as coming forward for development in 2017/2018 – 2028/2029. Although clearly now behind this timescale the proposal closely follows the aims of Policy SS3.10 of the Local Plan.
8.92.4. In terms of the public benefits of the proposal, bringing forward the largest allocated site in the Local Plan brings notable sustainable benefits in terms of housing (including 40% affordable housing), gypsy and traveller provision and self-build/custom build, employment, two local centres, MUGA, indoor sports hall, provision for a Country Park, public open space including Neighbourhood Parks and allotments, as well as other environmental enhancements.
8.92.5. The development would result in a less than substantial harm to heritage assets as described under criterion (h) of this report. Taking the above into account it is considered that the public benefits do outweigh the harm identified to the heritage assets, whether balanced on an individual basis or cumulatively, in accordance with paragraph 196 of the NPPF. Having regard to the requirements of Section 66 and 72 of The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 the proposal is therefore considered acceptable in this regard and in accordance with Policy EM11 and SS3.10 of the Local Plan. On this basis subject to the conditions listed below and the completion of a suitable s106 agreement the application is recommended for approval.
Conditions
TIME LIMIT
1. The first application for approval of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (the ‘Reserved Matters’ – see Condition 9) shall be made to the Local Planning Authority no later than [three] years from the date of this permission. Applications for approval of all subsequent “Reserved Matters” for each part of the development including “Reserved Matters Applications Advanced Outside a Key Phase” shall be made to the Local Planning Authority no later than [twenty] years from the date of this permission. Such development to which those “Reserved Matters Applications” relate shall be begun no later than the expiration of [three] years from the final approval of those “Reserved Matters”.
REASON: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.
PHASED APPROACH
2. Development shall be undertaken in phases. Development shall not commence unless it is within: a) an approved “Key Phase” and an identified “Reserved Matters Area”; or
b) an approved “Reserved Matters Application Advanced for enabling works / infrastructure”
c) an approved “Reserved Matters Application Advanced for Temporary / early community infrastructure”
d) an approved “Reserved Matters Application Advanced outside a Key Phase”
REASON: In accordance with Policy SS3.10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and in the interests of the proper planning of the development and to ensure the monitoring of the timing and implementation of the permission in the interests of Housing Land Supply in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
DEVELOPMENT CONFORMITY – SITE WIDE
3. All development shall substantially conform with the approved: a) “Parameter Plans”
i) 5556/OPA/001/P Rev C Application Site Area (red line) Plan
ii) 5556/OPA/002/P Rev C Land Use and Density Parameter Plan
iii) 5556/OPA/003/P Rev C Building Heights and Density Parameter Plan
iv) 5556/OPA/004/P Rev D Principal Access and Movement Parameter Plan
v) 5556/OPA/005/P Rev D Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan
b) “Primary Means of Access Plans” i) 5556/OPA/006/P Rev H
ii) 5556/OPA/007/P Rev A
iii) 5556/OPA/008/P Rev A REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and to ensure the impacts of the development are not materially different to those assessed and identified in the Environmental Impact Assessment.
RESERVED MATTERS – ADVANCED ENABLING/INFRASTRUCTURE
4. A “Reserved Matters Application” for enabling works and infrastructure required to implement the development, where planning permission for such works is required, can be made and determined, with the written agreement of the LPA in advance of the “Site Wide Framework” or “Key Phase Framework". Any such request for submission and determination of a Reserved Matters Application in advance of the “Site Wide Framework” or “Key Phase Framework” shall include:
a) A brief statement setting how matters that would otherwise be achieved through the Site Wide Framework and Key Phase Framework (and all associated conditions) are either not relevant to development proposed or how the reserved matters application will address those relevant parts. The Reserved Matters Application shall thereafter be submitted in accordance with approved details under (a) and they shall address all relevant Reserved Matters Application Conditions. The development thereafter shall be carried out with the approved details and any conditions imposed on the Reserved Matters approval. REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning ensuring the delivery of development in accordance with Policy SS3.10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 in relation to the delivery of housing, infrastructure and associated development.
SITE WIDE FRAMEWORK SUBMISSION
5. Prior to the commencement of development or approval of any reserved matters (except where agreed through Condition 4), the following "Site Wide Frameworks" (Parts A – I) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The "Site Wide Framework" strategies will establish broad, site wide principles, objectives, parameters and targets, under the following headings:
a) “Site-Wide Vision & Development Specification”, including: 1. A vision statement for the scheme as a whole 2. A Development Specification setting out a land use budget 3. Important spatial and development principles to supplement the Parameter Plans
b) “Site-Wide Urban Design Framework”, including: 1. The Role of the Document 2. The Document in the Planning Structure 3. The Site - A summary 4. The Site Wide Principles (taken from the Vision and Development Specification) 5. The Design Framework - The Design Framework Plan, including confirmation of the strategic character generators and character generators - Design Framework Principles 6. Layout 7. Land Use 8. Scale and Density 9. Movement & Access including the link road design principles including of key interchanges between approved accesses and the link road, and on-site and off-site public rights of way. 10. Green Infrastructure (including Landscape and Biodiversity features, Open Space, Play Space, Playing Fields and Sports Provision including: - Principles of location of the Neighbourhood Parks in accordance with the Approved Plans. - Principles of location of the allotments in accordance with the Approved Plans. 11. The development edge relationship with Worting Conservation Area, Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments and Country Park 12. Character and Appearance c) “Site-Wide Phasing and Delivery Strategy” 1. Key Phasing Objectives / Principles 2. Phasing determinants 3. Likely Inter-dependencies 4. Triggers and broad sequence for delivery (infrastructure focus) 5. Specific temporary/ early community infrastructure provision 6. Illustrative Spatial Implications 7. Monitoring schedules for: - Open Spaces - Housing and tenure - Community, Health, local centres and other non-residential uses including schools, pre-schools and nurseries d) “Site Wide Estate Management Plan” 1. Ambition and Vision 2. Overarching Objectives 3. Management structure principles 4. Responsibilities for management in relation to key land uses, including strategic principles relating to the Country Park e) “Site Wide Ecological Mitigation & Management Strategy” 1. Strategy for creation of connected site wide ecological network and mitigation measures (retained features, enhanced habitat, created habitat, corridors, buffers, woodland, hedgerows) 2. Strategy for protection of habitats, including restrictions in access to protected areas 3. Management and monitoring regime(s) (covering indicative access management and lighting mitigation strategies) 4. Structure and content of Biodiversity Monitoring Plan (BMP), a Biodiversity Mitigation and Management Plan (BMMP)) and a Landscape Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) 5. Strategy for habitat clearance, creation, enhancement and phasing 6. Strategy for habitat and species protection measures during construction and operational phases (a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (Biodiversity)) to include:
i. Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities. ii. Identification of ‘biodiversity protection zones’ iii. Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements). iv. The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features, to include SINCs, rare arable plants, protected species v. The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works. vi. Responsible persons and lines of communication. vii. The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW). viii. Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs. f) “Site Wide Construction Strategy” to include:
1. A Construction Environmental Management Plan (Amenity):
i. Procedures for maintaining good public relations including complaint management. ii. Public Arrangements for liaison with the Council's Environmental Protection Team. iii. All works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary, or at such other place as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, shall be carried out only between the following hours: 0730 Hours and 18 00 Hours on Mondays to Fridays and 08 00 and 13 00 Hours on Saturdays and; at no time on Sundays and Bank or Public Holidays; iv. Deliveries to and removal of plant, equipment, machinery and waste from the site must only take place within the permitted hours detailed above. v. Mitigation measures as defined in BS 5528: Parts 1 and 2: 2009 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites shall be used to minimise noise disturbance from construction works. vi. Procedures for emergency deviation of the agreed working hours. vii. Control measures for dust and other air-borne pollutants. viii. Measures for controlling the use of site lighting whether required for safe working or for security purposes. ix. A site wide routing strategy for construction vehicles.
2. A Construction Implementation Plan including details of the following that might reasonably be required for the purposes of construction phases: i. Site hoardings; ii. Site compounds, hardstanding and temporary buildings; iii. Surveys and utilities surveys including invasive works; iv. Works associated with the archaeological and ground investigations as approved under condition 12 and 24; v. Removal or diversion of services; vi. Ground remediation and stabilisation works. g) “Site Wide Surface Water Management Strategy” ensuring no development, other than enabling works implemented in accordance with Condition [4], shall begin until a detailed surface water management strategy for the whole site, based on the principles within the Flood Risk Assessment ref: MSD12gR, has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Site Wide Surface Water Management Strategy shall be accompanied by a detailed and quantitative assessment of the Manydown development southern catchment on the groundwater flooding at Buckskin and West Ham area demonstrating any change in infiltration and surface water runoff as a result of the proposed development will have nil detriment on the groundwater flooding at Buckskin and West Ham Area.
h) “Country Park Development Brief” shall be produced with particular reference to and consideration of the relationship with the Site Wide Ecological Mitigation and Management Strategy under condition 5 (e) and shall cover covering the following contents:
1. The Role of the Document 2. The Document in the Planning Structure 3. The Extent of the Country Park - A summary 4. The Country Park Principles 5. Principles to establish the location and nature of land uses 6. Land Use 7. Design principles for all major land uses proposed including typologies 8. Locations for key uses and how mixed-use areas will be achieved, and address related and adjacent uses 9. Movement & Access, including public rights of way 10. Public Transport routes and integration 11. Walking and Cycling 12. Parking 13. Landscape typologies and headline specifications 14. Character and Appearance (including scale) – this should include an appraisal to ensure that the potential landscape and visual impact on the surrounding open countryside and the AONB are fully considered. 15. Facilities, Landscape and Habitat Management 16. Principles of Delivery and Phasing
i) “Site Wide Travel Plan Framework”, in order to confirm those measures that will be applied to the site and each key phase, and updating on the strategy set out in the Travel Plan submitted with the Outline Application MSD12bR July 2018.
j) “Site Wide Heritage Management Plan” long term objectives for the promotion of awareness, understanding and education related to the heritage assets in and surrounding the site together with the long term plans to manage and maintain the setting(s) of relevant heritage asset(s).
Development shall not commence (other than that permitted under Condition 4) and no Key Phase shall be submitted unless it is alongside or following the submission of the “Site Wide Framework”. The “Site Wide Framework” shall be in accordance with the plans approved as listed under Condition 3.
All Key Phase Submissions and all Reserved Matters Applications (other than in accordance with Condition 4) submitted for approval alongside or following approval of the Site Wide Framework and all details submitted pursuant to the discharge of conditions in this decision notice shall conform with the Approved Site Wide Framework.
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning ensuring the delivery of development in accordance with Policy SS3.10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 in relation to the delivery of housing, infrastructure and associated development.
RESERVED MATTERS ADVANCED – EARLY/TEMPORARY INFRASTRUCTURE
6. Where necessary and/or beneficial to bring forward temporary or early community infrastructure in advance of the “Key Phase” approval a “Reserved Matters Application” can be made and determined with the written agreement of the LPA. Any such request for submission and determination of a Reserved Matters Application in advance of the “Key Phase Framework” shall be accompanied by: a) A brief statement justifying early provision.
b) A brief statement setting out how conformity is achieved with the approved Site Wide Framework and how matters that would otherwise be achieved through the Key Phase Framework (and all associated conditions) are either not relevant to development proposed or how the reserved matters application will address those relevant parts.
c) In relation to temporary facilities a brief statement setting out the time period to be applied for and how this would not prejudice the wider development coming forward with particular reference to the approved Site Wide Phasing and Delivery Strategy. The Reserved Matters Application shall thereafter be submitted in accordance with approved details under (b) and they shall address all relevant Reserved Matters Application Conditions. The development thereafter shall be carried out with the approved details and any conditions imposed on the Reserved Matters approval. REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning ensuring the delivery of development in accordance with Policy SS3.10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 in relation to the delivery of housing, infrastructure and associated development.
KEY PHASE FRAMEWORK SUBMISSION
7. A “Key Phase Framework” submission shall be made to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. It shall include the following information as required: a) A “Key Phase Definition Plan” showing the extent of the Key Phase, this having been scoped with the Local Planning Authority through pre-phase consultation.
b) A “Key Phase Definition Statement” setting out justification for the definition and content of the Key Phase and to include the relationship with Key Phases and RMAs already approved.
c) A “Key Phase Schedule of Uses and Quantum of Development”, including detail of the residential offer (including open market, special needs, self/custom build, older persons provision).
d) A “Key Phase Delivery Progress Statement” setting out practical completion of development across the Key Phase or Key Phases previously approved, reporting upon the last monitoring position.
e) A statement of conformity with the “Site Wide Framework” to include any proposed supplements to the “Site Wide Framework” to address “Key Phase” specific issues including any updates to the Site Wide Amenity CEMP at Condition 5 (f) (1). .
f) An Update Statement that demonstrates how the additional detail within the relevant Key Phase(s) relates to the Transport Assessment (and addendums) submitted in this outline application shall be submitted for development proposed within any Key Phase(s) up to the delivery of the fulfilment of the “implementation stage” (of up to 1200 dwellings). Thereafter a “Key Phase Transport Assessment” that shall demonstrate, within the context of the monitored transport impacts that the transport movements proposed within a Key Phase are not expected to give rise to severe impact upon the network and shall have regard to: - combined with “Key Phases” and “Reserved Matters Applications” already approved within the outline planning application area; and - applying committed and programmed mitigation measures and “Key Phase” proposed mitigation measures. A “Key Phase Transport Assessment” shall include any relevant mitigation measures which are approved to be carried out in relation to this Key Phase and any triggers for the same. g) A “Key Phase Residential Travel Plan” setting out phase wide measures to be implemented in accordance with the principles and approach set out within the Site Wide Travel Plan Framework. h) A “Key Phase Delivery Plan”, taking account of progress to date. This should include, where relevant: the reserved matters development sequence; a housing delivery statement including an affordable housing delivery statement; a school delivery programme; early years delivery programme; an open space delivery programme; ecological mitigation delivery programme sports and community facilities delivery programme; infrastructure and services delivery plan and programme and a detailed transport mitigation scheme; a plan identifying areas where noise impact testing is required at the “Reserved Matters” stage. i) A “Key Phase Design Code”, including a statement of purpose; the “Key Phase Regulatory Plan”; the geographic, planning and design context; design coding information to establish spatial fixes for multi-functional green space, play areas, allotments, playing fields and sports facilities, movement and access, commercial built form, residential built form, community facilities built form; design principles on matters of detail design in relation to the Worting Conservation Area, relevant Listed Buildings and features of archaeological importance and for the character areas and commercial, community and residential development, and public realm including materials palettes, boundary treatment, street furniture and lighting; and other technical details that future detailed proposals must take account of. j) To provide a “First Primary School Development Brief”, for the first primary school, a “Second Primary School Development Brief,” for the second primary school and a “Secondary School Development Brief” for the secondary school, to be submitted as part of the relevant “Key Phase Framework” Submission unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, covering the following contents:
1. The Role of the Document 2. The Document in the Planning Structure 3. Design principles and integration with adjoining development 4. Approach to dual uses 5. Principles of Delivery and Phasing 6. Movement & Access to include: i. Public Transport routes and integration ii. Walking and Cycling iii. Parking k) To provide the “Eastern Local Centre Development Brief” with the relevant “Key Phase Framework” and the “Western Local Centre Development Brief” with the relevant “Key Phase Framework” submission unless otherwise agreed with the LPA, covering the following contents:
1. The Role of the Document 2. The Document in the Planning Structure 3. Design principles and integration with adjoining development 4. Approach to dual uses 5. Principles of Delivery and Phasing 6. Movement & Access to include: i. Public Transport routes and integration ii. Walking and Cycling iii. Parking l) To provide a “Key Phase Surface Water Management Strategy” adopting the parameters and principles set out in the Site Wide Surface Water Management Strategy. Variation and or supplement to the parameters and principles set out in the Site Wide Surface Water Management Strategy may be acceptable if that variation reflects best practice and does not give rise to a material change in likely impacts. If variation is proposed, the Site Wide Surface Water Management Strategy should be updated, including justification for the changes, and submitted for approval with the Key Phase Surface Water Management Strategy. m) A “Key Phase Foul Water Drainage Strategy“ including a plan of the strategic foul water network to serve the “Key Phase” and the location of on-site primary infrastructure, including any pumping stations required, for the “Key Phase”. n) “Key Phase Archaeological Scope of Investigation” and programme of mitigation aligned with “Key Phase Delivery Plan”. o) “Key Phase Sustainability Strategy setting out how sustainable design will be incorporated into the layout, design and construction of development within the Key Phase reflecting the approach set out in the MSD10 Construction Statement. p) A “Key Phase Arboriculture Statement” identifying trees and hedgerows to be removed as advanced works and retained and protected in advance of reserved matters. Details should be provided of the protection measures to be put in place in respect of those trees and hedgerows to be retained in accordance with BS5837:2012. q) “Key Phase Ecological Mitigation and Management Plan” setting out how the development will secure ecological enhancements and mitigation, including the width and function of buffers, reflecting the approach set out in MSD13 Appendix F2 submitted with the Outline Planning Application and to include:
1. Updated survey information 2. Updated CEMP (Biodiversity) to address any Key Phase specific requirements beyond that approved under Condition 5 (e) (6). 3. Protected Species Mitigation in conformity with Site Wide Ecological Mitigation & Management Strategy 4. Key principles and objectives for the Lighting Mitigation Strategy 5. A Biodiversity Mitigation and Management Plan (BMMP).
A BMMP shall be written in accordance with the structure and content agreed under Condition 5 (e) (4) as relevant to each of the following ecological features on the Key Phase: Woodlands and veteran trees - including the ancient semi-natural woodland SINCs, details including appropriate buffers The Green Lane SINC Hedgerows Species Rich Grasslands Rare Arable Plants and other farmland wildlife (under a Farmland Wildlife and Pollinator Package) Skylarks Nesting and Wintering birds Barn Owls Red Kites Bats Hazel dormice Badgers Brown Hares Hedgehogs Reptiles and Amphibians Invertebrates – including the Large Garden Bumblebee Any other ecological feature that may be identified by future updated ecological surveys
Each BMMP shall include the following unless otherwise agreed under Condition 5 (e) (4):
i. Description and evaluation of features to be managed and/or protected ii. Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management iii. Aims and objectives of management iv. Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives, including specific access management operations/restrictions v. Acceptable thresholds and/or targets, if relevant vi. Prescriptions for management actions vii. Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five-year period) viii. Details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of the plan.
The BMMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring strategy show that conservation aims and objectives of the BMMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the mitigation measures outlined in the submitted ecological details submitted. The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
6. A Biodiversity Monitoring Plan (BMP)
The purpose of the plan shall be to establish the effectiveness of measures to provide suitable conditions to retain the populations of species and habitats identified as ecological features present within the land in the ownership of the Applicant to the north of the railway line within Chapter 9 of the ES on site post- development and measures to create new areas of suitable habitat conditions for such species/habitats by recording their distribution and abundance. Unless otherwise agreed under Condition 5 (e) (4), as relevant to the Key Phase the BMP shall include the following:
a) Aims and objectives of monitoring to match the stated purpose (these to include monitoring recreational impacts amongst others). b) Identification of adequate baseline conditions prior to the start of development c) Appropriate success criteria, thresholds, triggers and targets against which the effectiveness of the various conservation measures being monitored can be judged. d) Methods for data gathering and analysis e) Location of monitoring f) Timing and duration of monitoring g) Responsible persons and lines of communication h) Review, and where appropriate, publication of results and outcomes.
A report describing the results of monitoring shall be submitted to the local planning authority at intervals identified in the approved strategy. The report shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed with the local planning authority, and then implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme. The monitoring strategy will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
7. A Landscape Environmental Management Plan (LEMP)
Unless otherwise agreed under Condition 5 (e) (4) the LEMP as relevant to the Key Phase shall include how each habitat on site is to be created, enhanced and managed and specifically include the following.
i. Description and evaluation of features to be created, enhanced and managed ii. Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management iii. Aims and objectives of management with precise habitat descriptions on which the plan may be monitored and enforced iv. Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives v. Prescriptions for achievable management actions vi. Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five-year period) vii. Details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of the plan viii. Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures
The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring strategy show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the mitigation measures outlined in the submitted ecological details submitted. The LEMP should include the information requested for the discharge of the Biodiversity Management Plan obligation including contractual terms.
No “Reserved Matters Application” (other than exceptions as defined by Condition 4, 6 and 8)) shall be submitted unless it is alongside or following approval of the relevant “Key Phase Framework”. All parts of the “Key Phase Framework” must be approved before any Reserved Matters pursuant to the defined Key Phase can be approved. There shall be no material alterations to an approved Key Phase Definition once commencement has occurred on the relevant Key Phase.
Where Reserved Matters Applications are brought forward within an Approved Key Phase area they shall conform with the approved Key Phase Submission and any measures approved as part of the Key Phase Framework to secure necessary mitigation, not requiring Reserved Matter approval, will be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Measures to secure necessary mitigation not requiring reserved matters approval will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning ensuring the delivery of development in accordance with Policy SS3.10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 in relation to the delivery of housing, infrastructure and associated development.
RESERVED MATTERS ADVANCED – OUTSIDE A KEY PHASE (EXCEPTION)
8. In exceptional circumstances where it is necessary and/or beneficial to bring forward development in advance of the “Key Phase” to either speed up delivery or achieve an improved outcome with an adjoining Key Phase, approval a “Reserved Matters Application can be made and determined with the written agreement of the LPA. Any such request for submission and determination of a Reserved Matters Application in advance of the “Key Phase Framework” shall include: a) A brief statement justifying the exception and the relationship with “Key Phases” already defined and “Reserved Matters Applications” already approved or submitted for approval together with the timing for the delivery of the proposed development (being the exception);.
b) A brief statement setting out how conformity is achieved with the approved "Site Wide Framework" and how matters that would otherwise be achieved through the Key Phase Framework (and all associated conditions) are either not relevant to development proposed or how the reserved matters application will address those relevant parts. The Reserved Matters Application shall thereafter be submitted in accordance with approved details under (b) and they shall address all relevant Reserved Matters Application Conditions. The development thereafter shall be carried out with the approved details and any conditions imposed on the Reserved Matters approval. In relation to requests for residential development the maximum quantum of development that can be considered under this condition shall be limited to 200 dwellings across the whole application site. The development shall be carried out with the approved details and where Reserved Matters Applications are brought forward outside a Key Phase, they shall address all relevant Reserved Matters Application Conditions.
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning ensuring the delivery of development in accordance with Policy SS3.10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 in relation to the delivery of housing, infrastructure and associated development.
RESERVED MATTERS
9. Details as referred to in Condition No. 1 relating to access (other than those primary means of access already approved under the outline application), appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called the “Reserved Matters") for the associated Reserved Matters Area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development of that Reserved Matters Area begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.
Save for minor variations which do not deviate from this permission or have any additional or materially different, likely significant environmental effects to those assessed in the “Environmental Statement” accompanying the outline application all information submitted to discharge “Reserved Matters Requirements” shall conform with the approved plans and “Site Wide Framework” as identified in Condition 5 unless it is a Reserved Matters brought forward under Condition 4.
Where reserved matters applications are brought forward within a “Key Phase” they shall conform with the relevant, approved “Key Phase Framework” as identified in Condition 7.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Reserved Matters.
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning ensuring the delivery of development in accordance with Policy SS3.10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 in relation to the delivery of housing, infrastructure and associated development.
OTHER CONDITIONS
10. Development shall proceed in accordance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan(s) (CEMP (Biodiversity)) approved under Condition 5 (e) (6), and as may be updated under Condition 7 (q). Where specific matters arising on a Reserved Matters Area are identified requiring further details these shall be submitted with the relevant Reserved Matters application, thereafter forming part of the approved CEMP (Biodiversity) for that Reserved Matters Area. The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details.
REASON: to minimise the impact on the existing biodiversity of the site and its surroundings, in accordance with Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Dean Local Plan 2011-2029.
11. No development shall commence on the site unless and until a Woodland Management Plan, relating to the woodland areas identified as W1-W5 inclusive in the impact assessment (MSD12n-Arboriculture ES Appendix 9.3) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Woodland Management Plan shall cover a minimum period of 20 years and shall:
a) Set out the short term management aims to be completed prior to occupation of the development. b) Set out the long term management aims with a view to maximising the recreational, ecological and landscape value of the woodland. c) Set out the management operations to be carried out, including details of how those operations are to be carried out and their frequency. d) Set out details of a scheme of review to ensure that the management will always be appropriate to secure the continual cover and management of the woodland. e) Be presented in a format to be integrated into the council’s own tree database and that would meet Forestry Commission requirements for grant application. All operations identified by the Woodland Management Plan, including the scheme of review, shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved details.
REASON: To ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard woodland in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.
12. No development shall commence in a Key Phase and/or Reserved Matters Area (as may be approved under Conditions 4, 6 or 8 (unless such details approved under Conditions 4, 6 and 8 confirm that either these are not relevant to development proposed or how the reserved matters submission under those conditions will address the requirement)) until a written scheme of investigation for each Key Phase or Reserved Matters Area in accordance with the scope agreed under condition 7 (n) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall be carried out in accordance with the details so approved. REASON: To assess the extent, nature and date of any archaeological deposits that might be present and the impact of the development upon these heritage assets in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and Policy EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. Details are required in the absence of being provided to accompany the planning submission.
13. No development shall commence in a Key Phase and/or Reserved Matters Area (as may be approved under Conditions 4, 6 or 8 (unless such details approved under Conditions 4, 6 and 8 confirm that either these are not relevant to development proposed or how the reserved matters submission under those conditions will address the requirement)) until a programme of phasing of archaeological mitigation related to or within that Key Phase or Reserved Matters Area in accordance with the scope agreed under condition 7 (n) and the approved written scheme of investigation as secured under Condition 12 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The programme of archaeological mitigation shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. REASON: To mitigate the effect of the works associated with the development upon any heritage assets and to ensure that information regarding these heritage assets is preserved by record for future generations in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and Policy EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. Details are required in the absence of being provided to accompany the planning submission.
14. Following completion of any approved stage of the on-site archaeological fieldwork, a report for that Key Phase or Reserved Matters Area shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and the Hampshire County Council Archaeologist in accordance with the approved programme and phasing of archaeological investigation as required by condition 12. This report shall include where appropriate, a post-excavation assessment, specialist analysis and reports, details of publication and public engagement. REASON: To contribute to our knowledge and understanding of our past by ensuring that opportunities are taken to capture evidence from the historic environment and to make this publicly available in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and Policy EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
15. No development shall commence in a Key Phase and/or Reserved Matters Area (as may be approved under Conditions 4, 6 or 8 (unless such details approved under Conditions 4, 6 and 8 confirm that either these are not relevant to development proposed or how the reserved matters submission under those conditions will address the requirement)) until details for the long-term maintenance arrangements for the Key Phase water drainage system (including all SuDS features) together with details of the relationship/dependencies with other relevant/defined key phases has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details should include: • Plans detailing the responsibility of the different drainage features • Maintenance schedules for each drainage type • Protection measures to protect the drainage features while construction is ongoing. REASON: To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact on the local community in accordance with the NPPF 2019 and Policy CN6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
16. No development shall commence in a Key Phase and/or Reserved Matters Area (as may be approved under Conditions 4, 6 or 8 (unless such details approved under Conditions 4, 6 and 8 confirm that either these are not relevant to development proposed or how the reserved matters submission under those conditions will address the requirement)) until an integrated water management strategy detailing, what infrastructure is required, where it is required, when it is required (phasing) and how it will be delivered for that Key Phase, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. The development shall be occupied in line with the recommendations of the strategy. REASON: The development may lead to sewage flooding and or pollution of the environment; an Integrated water management strategy is required to ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cater for the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community.
17. Development shall proceed in accordance with the Biodiversity Mitigation and Management Plan(s) (BMMP) approved under Condition 7(q) (5). Where specific matters arising on a Reserved Matters Area are identified requiring further details these shall be submitted with the relevant Reserved Matters application, thereafter forming part of the approved BMMP for that Reserved Matters Area. REASON: To protect and enhance the existing biodiversity of the site and its surroundings, in accordance with Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
18. No development shall commence in a relevant Key Phase and/or Reserved Matters Area (as may be approved under Conditions 4, 6 or 8) until details of the following junctions as identified in principal in the Access and Movement and Parameter Plan (ref 5556-OPA-004-P rev D) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
a) the secondary southern access on the B3400; and b) the secondary access onto Roman Road, such that it comes forward as part of the implementation of the Northern A339 Access as shown on Drg No. 5556/OPA/006/P Rev H .
The accesses thereafter shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
REASON: To ensure a safe and suitable access point is provided at this location in accordance with Policy SS3.10 and Policy CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
19. Development shall proceed in accordance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP (Amenity)) approved under Condition 5 (f) (1), and as may be updated under Condition 7 (e). Where specific matters arising on a Reserved Matters Area are identified requiring further details these shall be submitted with the relevant Reserved Matters application, thereafter forming part of the approved CEMP (Amenity) for that Reserved Matters Area. The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details. The approved measures for each phase shall be fully implemented throughout the period of demolition and construction.
REASON: The Council encourages all contractors to be 'Considerate Contractors' when working in the Borough by being aware of the needs of neighbours and the environment and in the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
20. No development shall commence in a Key Phase (where identified under Condition 7(h)) and/or Reserved Matters Area (as may be approved under Conditions 4, 6 or 8 (unless such details approved under Conditions 4, 6 and 8 confirm that either these are not relevant to development proposed or how the reserved matters submission under those conditions will address the requirement)) until a noise mitigation scheme for protecting the proposed dwellings from noise has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any proposed mitigation scheme shall have regard to the Basingstoke & Deane ‘Noise assessments and reports for planning applications – Guidance note for developers and consultants’. Mitigation proposals will consider and utilise where possible, reduction in noise exposure achieved by effective site layout, building orientation, the use of physical barriers, utilising open space as a buffer, internal room configurations and any other available mitigation strategies.
The following noise levels shall be achieved with mitigation in place. a) Internal day time (0700 - 2300) noise levels shall not exceed 35dB LAeq, 16hr for habitable rooms (bedrooms and living rooms with windows open*) b) Internal night time (2300 - 0700) noise levels shall not exceed 30dB LAeq with individual noise events not exceeding 45dB LAfMax (windows open*). c) Garden areas shall not exceed 55 dB LAeq, 16hr,
*Where it is predicted that the internal noise levels specified above will not be met with windows open despite mitigation strategies, an alternative method of mitigation must be specified to supply outside air to habitable rooms with windows closed, and relieve the need to open windows. Background and passive ventilators, and system 3 extraction systems are not considered adequate for this purpose. Methods may include a system 4 MVHR system with cool air by-pass, or standalone mechanical units supplying outside air to each affected habitable room, or other equivalent systems.
The noise mitigation scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
REASON: In the interests of residential amenity, and to ensure acceptable noise levels are not exceeded within the dwellings and in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
21. Where dwellings have been identified by Condition 20 as requiring noise mitigation measures the developer shall agree a post completion noise testing methodology in writing with the Local Planning Authority before the test is carried out. This shall include details of the number and the location of dwellings to undergo post completion noise testing to verify compliance with the internal noise levels set in condition 20. The testing shall be carried out by a suitably qualified and competent acoustic consultant and in accordance with the approved testing methodology. REASON: To ensure that acceptable noise levels within the dwellings and amenity areas are not exceeded in the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
22. Development shall proceed in accordance with the Biodiversity Monitoring Plan (BMP) approved under Condition 7(q) (6). Where specific matters arising on a Reserved Matters Area are identified requiring further details these shall be submitted with the relevant Reserved Matters application, thereafter forming part of the approved BMP for that Reserved Matters Area. REASON: A number of important species and habitats are found on site and are material planning considerations under Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. These measures are required to minimise indirect impacts on the existing population of these species and habitats and help to promote their expansion within the areas to be retained.
23. Development shall proceed in accordance with the Landscape Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) approved under Condition 7(q) (7). Where specific matters arising on a Reserved Matters Area are identified requiring further details these shall be submitted with the relevant Reserved Matters application, thereafter forming part of the approved LEMP for that Reserved Matters Area. REASON: To help compensate for habitat loss resulting from the development and help to maintain the biodiversity of the area in the long term, in accordance with Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
24. No development shall commence in a Key Phase and/or Reserved Matters Area (as may be approved under Conditions 4, 6 or 8 (unless such details approved under Conditions 4, 6 and 8 confirm that either these are not relevant to development proposed or how the reserved matters submission under those conditions will address the requirement)) until the following has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:-
(a) a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as being appropriate by the desk study in accordance with BS10175:2011- Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice;
and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,
(b) a detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases when the site is developed. The scheme must include a timetable of works and site management procedures and the nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and if necessary proposals for future maintenance and monitoring.
If during any works contamination is encountered which has not been previously identified it should be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. The additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme, agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Contamination Land Guidance at: https://www.gov.uk/contaminated-land, Last accessed October 2019.
REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors [in accordance with Policy EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029].
25. No development in a Key Phase and/or Reserved Matters Area permitted shall be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of condition 24 (b) (for that Key Phase and/or Reserved Matters Area) that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of condition 24 (b) has been implemented fully in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority in advance of implementation). Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority such verification shall comprise;
as built drawings of the implemented scheme;
photographs of the remediation works in progress;
Certificates demonstrating that imported and/or material left in situ is free of contamination.
Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the scheme approved under condition 24 (c), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance Policy EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
26. No development shall commence in a Key Phase and/or Reserved Matters Area (as may be approved under Conditions 4, 6 or 8 (unless such details approved under Conditions 4, 6 and 8 confirm that either these are not relevant to development proposed or how the reserved matters submission under those conditions will address the requirement)) until a Construction Management Plan, to accord with the Site Wide Construction Management Strategy approved under Condition 5(f), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period in relation to the relevant Key Phase or Reserved Matters Area. The Statement shall provide for: i) the parking and turning of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv) wheel washing facilities or an explanation why they are not necessary; v) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities of public viewing, where appropriate; vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; vii) a scheme for recycling and disposing of waster resulting from construction work; viii) size and routing of construction vehicles and holding areas for these on/off site; and ix) the disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway during the Monday and Friday AM peak (0800 to 0900) and PM peak (1630 to 1800) periods.
REASON: In the interest of highway safety and to reduce the traffic impact of the development in accordance with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
27. Applications for the approval of reserved matters relating to residential development shall be in accordance with Policy CN3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards Supplementary Planning Document (or any policies or guidance superseding these documents or other such housing mix agreed with the Local Planning Authority) with particular regard to the provision of an appropriate mix and implementation of 15% or more of market dwellings being built to lifetime mobility standards. REASON: To ensure an appropriate co-ordinated high quality form of development and to accord with Policy CN3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.
28. Applications for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by a material schedule setting out full details of the types, textures and colours of all external materials to be used have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. Details are required in the absence of being provided to accompany the planning submission.
29. Applications for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by a measured survey has been undertaken and a plan prepared to a scale of not less than 1:500 showing details of existing and intended final ground levels and finished floor levels in relation to a nearby agreed datum point which shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
30. Applications for the approval of relevant reserved matters shall be accompanied by a scheme for the provision of Electric Vehicle Charging points for both unallocated and allocated parking spaces has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development permitted under that reserved matters shall then proceed in full accordance with the approved scheme. REASON: To ensure that the development provides opportunities for sustainable transport modes in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, the Parking SPD, paragraph 110(e) of the NPPF and the Manydown Development Brief SPD.
31. Applications for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by a Construction Statement demonstrating how the sustainable design identified in the Key Phase Sustainability Strategy (under Condition 7(o)) has been brought forward to the design and layout of buildings. In particular this shall as a minimum include detailing how the new homes shall meet a water efficiency standard of 110 litres or less per person per day agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority unless through a demonstration that this requirement for sustainable water use cannot be achieved on technical or viability grounds. The development shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved details. REASON: In the absence of such details being provided within the planning submission, details are required to ensure that the development delivers a level of sustainable water use in accordance with Policy EM9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
32. Applications for the approval of relevant reserved matters shall be accompanied by a waste collection strategy in relation to the relevant phase. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details. REASON: To ensure a satisfactory form of development in accordance with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
33. Any application for reserved matters will be supported by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) prepared in accordance with BS5837:2012 “Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction" and the council's Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document. The AIA shall be based upon the details approved under Condition 7(p) including a comprehensive survey of all the trees on and adjacent to the Reserved Matters Area and shall demonstrate which trees can be retained and which trees are to be removed. REASON: To ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) and policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 2011- 2029.
34. Any application for reserved matters will be supported by a Tree Protection Scheme prepared in accordance with BS5837:2012 “Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction" and the council's Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document. The Tree Protection Scheme shall include an Arboricultural Method Statement outlining how retained trees will be protected during the development and shall include a tree protection plan along with specifications for all operations within the root protection area of retained trees. REASON: To ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) and policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 2011- 2029.
35. Any application for relevant reserved matters will be supported by a Tree Planting Plan prepared in accordance with BS8545:2014 "Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape – Recommendations" and the council's Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document. The plan shall include the position, species and size of all new trees proposed for the development and shall include a plan to show all services and other infrastructure within the influence zone of each tree as it matures. The plan shall also include specific tree planting details, including tree pits to demonstrate that the underground soil volume and watering can be achieved to support the tree to healthy maturity. Details of protection of young trees to reduce the likelihood of breakage/vandalism to acceptable levels shall be provided. REASON: To ensure that reasonable measures are taken to establish trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) and policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 2011- 2029.
36. Applications for the approval of relevant reserved matters shall be accompanied by full details of both hard and soft landscape works including ground levels or contours; planting plans with specification (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment), schedules of plants noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/ densities. This should also include a schedule of tree planting to include the specification of tree planting pits where appropriate with details of any irrigation or drainage infrastructure, tree root barriers (if necessary) to prevent damage or disruption to any proposed hard surfacing or underground services, drains or other infrastructure and details of the location of external lighting sufficient to demonstrate how lighting is to be achieved without conflict to proposed tree planting, with allowance for reasonable growth. The hard and soft landscaping details shall be accompanied by an implementation programme. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority which should include appropriate planting to be undertaken at the earliest opportunity. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of species, size and number as originally approved, to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs and in accordance with Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
37. Applications for the approval of relevant reserved matters shall be accompanied by full details of plans indicating the positions, design, materials/species and types of boundary treatment to be erected/planted. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. Details are required prior to the commencement of development in the absence of being included within the application submission.
38. Any application for reserved matters will be supported by a plan showing the location of all existing and proposed utility services. This shall include gas, electricity, communications, water and drainage. REASON: To ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
39. Any reserved matters applications which seeks approval for new commercial and/or food premises must be submitted with full details of arrangements for air handling, odour control (including all ducting and flues), and necessary noise control measures. The need for such plant shall be determined in accordance with the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems (EMAQ 2018) document. This shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works detailed in an approved scheme shall be installed in their entirety before the use hereby permitted is commenced. The equipment shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and operated at all times when cooking is being carried out. REASON: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
40. Any reserved matters applications which seeks approval for new commercial and/or food premises must be submitted with full details of the proposed opening hours, including delivery hours. Opening and delivery hours shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before the use approved commences. REASON: In the interests of residential amenity, and to ensure acceptable noise levels are not exceeded within the dwellings and in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
41. Any reserved matters application shall include a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on the approved Key Phase Surface Water Management Strategy. The submitted details should include: a. A technical summary highlighting any changes to the design from that within the Site Wide Surface Water Management Strategy approved under Condition 5 (g) and the Key Phase Surface Water Management Strategy approved under Condition 7 (l). b. Infiltration test results undertaken in accordance with BRE365 and providing a representative assessment of those locations where infiltration features are proposed c. Detailed drainage plans to include type, layout and dimensions of drainage features including references to link to the drainage calculations. d. Detailed drainage calculations to demonstrate existing runoff rates are not exceeded and there is sufficient attenuation for storm events up to and including 1:100 + climate change. e. Evidence that urban creep has been included within the calculations. f. Confirmation that sufficient water quality measures have been included to satisfy the methodology in the Ciria SuDS Manual C753. g. Exceedance plans demonstrating the flow paths and areas of ponding in the event of blockages or storms exceeding design criteria.
REASON: To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact on the local community in accordance with the NPPF 2019 and Policy CN6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
42. Prior to commencement of any development in any relevant Reserved Matters Area, including any demolition works, soil moving, temporary access construction/widening, or storage of materials, a ‘lighting design strategy for biodiversity’ in accordance with the Key Phase principles and objectives for a Lighting Mitigation Strategy approved under Condition 7 (q) (4) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall:
a) identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for dormice, bats or other relevant nocturnal wildlife and that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places or along important routes used to access key areas of their territory, for example, for foraging; and b) show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent the above species using their territory or having access to their breeding sites and resting places, in particular along key connectivity routes and habitats closest to development even where these areas may occur offsite and/or in adjacent areas to the Reserve Matters application.
All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the strategy, and these shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the strategy. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be installed without prior consent from the local planning authority. REASON: to minimise the impact on the existing biodiversity of the site and its surroundings, in accordance with Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
43. Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. REASON: Potential sources of contamination have been identified on site. In particular aviation fuel pipelines are notes as being present. Piling or deep foundation work in the vicinity of these pipeline could potentially pose a risk to the integrity of these pipes or mobilises any existing contamination that may be present. This could impact the underlying chalk principal aquifer and associated any abstractions. An assessment of these risks should be undertaken. Sufficient safeguards should be installed to ensure no unacceptable risk to controlled waters such as the underlying chalk principal aquifer in accordance with Paragraph 170 of the NPPF 2019 and Policy CN6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.
44. No impact pile driving in connection with the construction of the development shall take place on the site on any Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times: Monday to Friday – 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. unless in association with an emergency or with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period in accordance with Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan Policy EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
45. No new building services/mechanical plant or other industrial and commercial activities that generate noise, shall be permitted until a Noise Impact Assessment is undertaken in accordance with BS4142: 2014 – Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound. Any new activity/plant must achieve a rating level of at least 5dBA below the background noise level. A suitably qualified acoustic consultant/engineer must carry out the assessment. The assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
46. No building works to any relevant commercial or community use buildings above damp proof course shall commence until a scheme for the provisions of the control of amplified music noise emanating from those buildings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details on the sound insulation measures required to mitigate noise break-out and a noise management plan to address the management of noise during events where amplified music is a dominant source of noise. REASON: To ensure that acceptable noise levels within the dwellings and amenity areas are not exceeded in the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
47. No development shall commence within any part of the permitted development involving floodlighting, until a written scheme of the proposed lighting, including siting, height, design and position of floodlights, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The lighting shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme and no other form of lighting shall be implemented on the application site without the prior written approval of the local planning authority. REASON: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
48. Land for potential future railway crossing to be safeguarded from development for duration of the Local Plan Period (2011-2029), in accordance with the land identified in brown on the approved Access and Movement Parameter Plan (5556/OPA/004/P Rev C) and Land Use Parameter Plan (5556/OPA/002/P Rev C). REASON: To ensure that suitable land is safeguarded for a vehicular link across the railway line that may be needed to serve future development in accordance with Policy SS3.10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
49. In accordance with the Access and Movement Parameter Plan (5556/OPA/004/P Rev C) the land identified in blue for a potential future railway crossing to be brought forward for development no sooner than the development of the final phase of development (or [2500] homes if sooner). Land will come forward no sooner than the last phase. REASON: To ensure that suitable land is safeguarded for a vehicular link across the railway line that may be need to serve future development in accordance with Policy SS3.10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
50. Not to commence development until all owners and/or leaseholders (including any relevant chargee) have deduced title to the local planning authority and entered into a confirmatory s106 deed in a form acceptable to the Local Planning Authority binding the site by the obligations and covenants secured in the Section 106 Agreement entered into in respect of this permission. REASON: To ensure that all of the land is properly bound by the obligations contained in the relevant Section 106 Agreement in order to secure the necessary planning benefits and mitigation measures which make the development acceptable and in accordance with Policy CN6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.
51. No development shall commence in the relevant Key Phase(s) until a scheme detailing the incorporation and/or stopping up (as appropriate) of the sections of the existing B3400, that would be severed by the implementation of the Worting Road Access (Drg no.) 5556/OPA/008/P Rev A, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the proper planning of the area.
52. The development for the following uses shall not exceed:
1 x unit A1 food store retail 2,000sqm GIA with a maximum sales area of 1,250sqm GIA. A1 Other Convenience Retail 2,000sqm GIA. No unit shall have a sales area greater than 400sqm GIA and across the whole development there shall be no more than 1,250sqm GIA maximum sales area. 4 x units of A1 Comparison Retail 600sqm GIA. No unit shall have a sales area greater than 120sqm GIA and across the whole development there shall be no more than 480sqm GIA maximum sales area. 6 x units of A1 Retail Services 900sqm GIA. No unit shall have a sales area greater than 120sqm GIA and across the whole development there shall be no more than 720sqm GIA maximum sales area. A3-A5 Food and Drink 900sqm GIA. No unit shall have a sales area greater than 120sqm GIA and across the whole development there shall be no more than 720sqm GIA maximum sales area. B1 Business 2400sqm. REASON: The retail uses in the local centres should complement the wider offer of the town centre and not seek to compete with nearby defined centres. The granting of an unrestricted planning permission in relation to retail could have a significant impact on the vitality and viability of nearby defined centres. The distribution and quantum of land uses is the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment and any material alteration could have an impact that has not been assessed.
Informative(s):-
1. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and proactive manner:-
offering a pre-application advice; seeking further information following receipt of the application; seeking amendments to the proposed development following receipt of the application; considering the imposition of conditions and or the completion of a s.106 legal agreement.
In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.
2. Where the proposals include works to an ordinary watercourse, under the Land Drainage Act 1991, as amended by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, a prior consent with the Lead Local Flood Authority is required for this work. This consent is required as a separate permission to planning. Information on consenting can be found at the following link: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/flooding/hampshireflooding/watercourses.htm It is strongly recommended that this information is reviewed before Land Drainage consent application is made.
3. Please note surface water drainage proposals will need to be assessed in relation to the impacts of climate change. The appropriate allowances are detailed in the latest advice from the Environment Agency Flood Risk Assessments: Climate Change Allowances. This updates previous change allowances to support NPPF. The proposed system should be tested for the peak rainfall intensity for the central and upper band in relation to the relevant development timeline.
4. The Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan and the Habitat Enhancement Scheme should include all the wildlife protection, mitigation and enhancement measures given in Environment Statement and allied ecological reports. The management plan should cover a time period of at least ten years.
5. Applicants are advised that the grant of planning permission does not absolve them from complying with the relevant law protecting species, including obtaining and complying with the terms and conditions of any licences required, as described in Part IV B of Circular 06/2005.
6. There are a number of PROW that run adjacent to/through the development site, the applicant should be made aware that:
• There must be no surface alterations to the right of way, nor any works carried out which affect its surface, without first seeking the permission of Hampshire County Council, as Highway Authority. For the purposes of this proposal that permission would be required from this department of the County Council. To carry out any such works without this permission would constitute an offence under s131 Highways Act 1980.
• Nothing connected with the development or its future use should have an adverse effect on the right of way, which must remain available for public use at all times.
• In addition, no builders or contractors vehicles, machinery, equipment, materials, scaffolding or anything associated with the works should be left on or near the footpath so as to obstruct, hinder or provide a hazard to walkers.
7. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the informative notes provided in the Biodiversity Officer’s consultation response dated 17th February 2020 in particular with regard to drawing up discharge of conditions and the requirements in relation to European Protected Species.
8. The applicant’s attention is drawn to important safety advice in the consultation response from Southern Gas Networks dated 22 March 2017.