HEAD of REGULATORY SERVICES REPORT to the PLANNING COMMITTEE of 14Th May 2014

HEAD OF REGULATORY SERVICES REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OF 14th May 2014

1. INTRODUCTION This agenda considers planning applications submitted to the Council, as the Local Planning Authority, for determination. 2. STATUS OF OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMITTEE'S DECISIONS All information, advice, and recommendations contained in this agenda are understood to be correct at the time of preparation, which is approximately two weeks in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints, some reports may have been prepared before the final date for consultee responses or neighbour comment. Where a recommendation is either altered or substantially amended between preparing the report and the Committee meeting or where additional information has been received, a separate “Planning Addendum” paper will be circulated at the meeting to assist Councillors. This paper will be available to members of the public. The Planning Addendum report will also set out a report of the Viewing Panel visit (see below). A decision is made only when the Members of the Committee have formally considered and determined each application and the decision notice issued. 3. THE DEBATE AT THE MEETING The Chairman of the Committee will introduce the item to be discussed. A Planning Officer will then give a short presentation and, if applicable, public speaking will take place (see below). The Committee will then debate the application with the starting point being the officer recommendation. A flow chart showing the procedure is given at the end of this paper. 4. SITE VISITS A Panel of Members visits some sites on the day before the Committee meeting. This can be useful to assess the effect of the proposal on matters that are not clear from the plans or from the report. The Panel does not discuss the application or receive representations although applicants and Town/Parish Councils are advised of the arrangements. These are not public meetings. A summary of what was viewed is given on the Planning Addendum. 5. PLANNING POLICY All planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) of the Town and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). If the development plan contains material policies or proposals and there are no other material considerations, the application should be determined in accordance with the development plan. Where there are other material considerations, the development plan will be the starting point, and other material considerations will also be taken into account. One such consideration will be whether the plan policies are relevant and up to date. The relevant development plans are the saved policy NRM6 in the South East Plan, the saved policies of the Hart District Local Plan including first alterations, and the Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton, New Forest National Park & South Downs National Park Minerals and Waste Plan. Although not necessarily specifically referred to in the Committee report, the relevant development plan will have been used as a background document and the relevant policies taken into account in the preparation of the report on each item. The Council has also adopted an Interim Housing Delivery Strategy to guide residential development as the housing policies of the saved Local Plan are of some vintage. This does not form part of the development plan. Certain applications must be notiﬁed to the Secretary of State who will decide if it is necessary to intervene. The Council should not however, refuse planning permission for a development that accords with the development plan. Where a development represents a departure from the development plan and it is proposed to recommend that planning permission be granted, the application will be advertised as a departure and this will be highlighted in the Committee report. If the Planning Committee is then minded to grant planning permission under the Council’s Constitution the Planning Committee has to refer the application to Full Council for determination unless it is in accordance with the Council’s. 6. LOCAL FINANCE CONSIDERATIONS Under changes introduced by the Localism Act 2011, in dealing with planning applications the Council is required to have regard to local finance considerations as far as they are material. These are defined as being any grant or other financial assistance provided by Central Government or any sum received through the Community Infrastructure Levy. It is specifically stated that this is not to alter the weight to be given to any consideration. 7. THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK Government statements of planning policy are material considerations that must be taken into account in deciding planning applications. These statements cannot make irrelevant any matter that is a material consideration in a particular case. Nevertheless, where such statements indicate the weight that should be given to relevant considerations, decision-makers must have proper regard to them. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration in determining applications. The NPPF states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development with its economic, social and environmental roles. All three aims should be sought jointly and simultaneously. The presumption in favour of sustainable development in decision making means:  approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and  where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: o 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; or o specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted. The NPPF indicates that a local plan will not be considered up to date on housing policies where the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land. 8. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Material considerations must be genuine planning considerations, i.e. they must be related to the development and use of land in the public interest. They must also fairly and reasonably relate to the application concerned. The Courts are the arbiters of what constitutes a material consideration. All the fundamental factors involved in land-use planning are included, such as the number, size, layout, siting, design, and external appearance of buildings and the proposed means of access, together with landscaping, impact on the neighbourhood, and the availability of infrastructure. Matters that should not be taken into account are: a) loss of property value b) loss of view c) land and boundary disputes d) matters covered by leases or covenants e) the impact of construction work f) property maintenance issues g) need for development (save in certain h) the identity or personal characteristics of the defined circumstances) applicant i) ownership of land or rights of way j) moral objections to development like public houses or betting shops k) change to previous scheme l) competition between firms, m) or matters that are dealt with by other legislation, such as the Building Regulations (e.g. structural safety, fire risks, means of escape in the event of fire etc). - The fact that a development may conflict with other legislation is not a reason to refuse planning permission or defer a decision. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure compliance with all relevant legislation.

Central Government has also published Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on various topics to assist decision makers. Where material reference will also be given to this.

9. PLANNING CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS Conditions on planning permissions can only be imposed where there is a clear land-use planning justiﬁcation for doing so. Conditions should be used in a way that is clearly seen to be fair, reasonable, and practicable. One key test of whether a particular condition is necessary is if planning permission would have to be refused if the condition were not imposed. Where it is not possible to include matters that are necessary for a development to proceed in a planning condition the Council can agree a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Planning obligations should meet the statutory requirements of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. They should be:  necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;  directly related to the proposed development; and  fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; 10. PLANNING APPEALS Applicants have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State if an application is refused, or granted subject to conditions, or if it has not been determined within the speciﬁed period. Appeals are administered by the Planning Inspectorate - an executive agency reporting to the Secretary of State. Appeals are considered by written representation, hearings, and public inquiries.

In planning appeals, it is normally expected that both parties will pay their own costs. Costs can however, be awarded against the Council where it: (a) Fails to determine a planning application in good time – the Council must have good planning reasons to explain and justify why it did not make a decision in time. (b) Fails to carry out adequate and diligent prior investigation in enforcement cases. (c) Prevents or delays development that should clearly be permitted having regard to the development plan, national policy statements and any other material considerations. It is the Councils responsibility to produce evidence to show clearly, why the development cannot be permitted. Reasons for refusal must be  complete,  precise,  specific  relevant to the application, and  supported by substantiated evidence. (d) Fails to show reasonable planning grounds for taking a decision contrary to officer advice (e) Gives too much weight to neighbour objections, the extent of local opposition is not, in itself, a reasonable ground for resisting development. To carry significant weight, opposition should be founded on valid planning reasons that are supported by substantial evidence. (f) Relies on unsubstantiated objections where they include valid reasons for refusal but rely almost exclusively on local opposition from third parties, through representations and attendance at an inquiry or hearing, to support the decision. The following are examples given in the PPG of circumstances that may lead to an award of costs against the Council: (a) Failure to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal on appeal (b) Vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact, which are unsupported by any objective analysis. (c) Refusing planning permission where it is concluded that suitable conditions would enable the proposed development to go ahead (d) Acting contrary to, or not following, well-established case law (e) Persisting in objections to a scheme or elements of a scheme which the Secretary of State or an Inspector has previously indicated to be acceptable (f) Not determining similar cases in a consistent manner (g) Failing to grant a further planning permission for a scheme that has an extant or recently expired permission where there has been no material change in circumstances (h) Refusing reserved matters when the objections relate to issues that should already have been considered at the outline stage (i) imposing a condition or requiring the completion of a planning obligation that does not meet the respective tests set out above (j) Refusing to enter into pre-application discussions, or to provide reasonably requested information, when a more helpful approach would probably have resulted in either the appeal being avoided altogether, or the issues to be considered being narrowed (k) Not reviewing their case promptly following the lodging of an appeal as part of sensible on-going case management. (l) If the local planning authority grants planning permission on an identical application where the evidence base is unchanged and the scheme has not been amended in any way, they run the risk of a full award of costs for an abortive appeal which is subsequently withdrawn 11. THE ROLE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE The Secretary of State has reserve powers to direct the council to refer an application to him/her for decision. This is what is meant by a 'called-in' application. In general, this power of intervention is used selectively and the Secretary of State will not interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. 12. PROPRIETY Members of the Planning Committee are obliged to represent the interests of the whole community in planning matters and not simply their individual Wards. When determining planning applications they must take into account planning considerations only. This can include views expressed on relevant planning matters. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless it is founded upon valid planning reasons. 13. PRIVATE INTERESTS The planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another, although private interests may coincide with the public interest in some cases. It can be difficult to distinguish between public and private interests, but this may be necessary on occasion. The basic question is not whether owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties would experience ﬁnancial or other loss from a particular development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities and the existing use of land and buildings that ought to be protected in the public interest. Covenants or the maintenance/ protection of private property are therefore not material planning consideration. 14. OTHER LEGISLATION Non-planning legislation may place statutory requirements on planning authorities, or may set out controls that need to be taken into account (for example, environmental legislation, or water resources legislation). The Council, in exercising its functions, also must have regard to the general requirements of other legislation, in particular:  The Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. The general purpose of the ECHR is to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to maintain and promote the ideals and values of a democratic society. It sets out the basic rights of every person together with the limitations placed on these rights in order to protect the rights of others and of the wider community. The speciﬁc Articles of the ECHR relevant to planning include Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property). All planning applications are assessed to make sure that the subsequent determination of the development proposal is compatible with the Act. If there is a potential conflict, this will be highlighted in the report on the relevant item.  The Equality Act 2010 puts a duty on public bodies, such as the Council, to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations in the course of developing policies and delivering services. The aim is for public bodies to consider the needs of all individuals in their day to day work, in developing policy, in delivering services, and in relation to their own employees. The need to advance equality of opportunity involves considering the need to: o remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics; o meet the needs of people with protected characteristics; and o encourage people with protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is low 15. PUBLIC SPEAKING The Council has a public speaking scheme, which allows a representative of the relevant Parish Council, objectors and applicants to address the Planning Committee. Full details of the scheme are on the Council’s website and are sent to all applicants and objectors where the scheme applies. Speaking is only available to those who have made representations within the relevant period or the applicant. It is not possible to arrange to speak to the Committee at the Committee meeting itself. Speakers are limited to a total of three minutes each per application site for the Parish Council, those speaking against the application and for the applicant /agent. Speakers are not permitted to ask questions of others or to join in the debate, although the Committee may ask questions of the speaker to clarify representations made or facts after they have spoken. For probity reasons associated with advance disclosure of information under the Access to Information Act, nobody will be allowed to circulate, show or display further material at, or just before, the Committee meeting.

16. LATE REPRESENTATIONS To make sure that all documentation is placed in the public domain and to ensure that the Planning Committee, applicants, objectors, and any other party has had a proper opportunity to consider further or new representations no new additional information will be allowed to be submitted less than 48 hours before the Committee meeting, except where to correct an error of fact in the report. 17. INSPECTION OF DRAWINGS All drawings are available for inspection on the internet at www.hart.gov.uk and at the Planning Development Reception area during our normal office hours. 18. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. However, in the event of an appeal, further resources will be put towards defending the Council’s decision. Rarely, and in certain circumstances, decisions on planning applications may result in the Council facing an application for costs arising from a planning appeal. Officers will aim to alert Members where this may be likely and provide appropriate advice in such circumstances. Nick Steevens Head of Regulatory Services.

Background Papers  The individual planning application file (reference quoted in each case)  Policies and saved policies in the South East Plan, the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006 including first alterations, Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton, New Forest National Park & South Downs National Park Minerals and Waste Plan  Government advice and guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, Planning Practice Guidance, circulars and ministerial statements  Any other document specifically referred to in the report. Planning Committee Procedure

Parish, Objector and Officer Presentation Applicant Speaking Main Issues Highlighted and followed by questions of Questions of fact or clarification fact or clarification of Officer

MOTION PUT DEBATE Ward Member (Normally in line with (Including any amendments) opportunity for right Recommendation) of reply

Final Officer If vote lost Comment VOTE

Annex A to Planning Committee reports

Contributions towards Community Infrastructure and Mitigation to the effects of Residential Development on European Sites

Introduction In considering any development proposal it is necessary to consider is whether it will have a planning impact. This may be an impact on policy, on the environment, amenity or the physical capacity of the infrastructure to accommodate the development, with the Council not seeking to rectify any deficiencies.

Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended) allows for the completion of a legal deed, a “planning obligation”, to a) Restrict the development or use of the land in any specified way; b) Require specified operations or activities to be carried out in, on, under or over the land; c) Require the land to be used in any specified way; or d) Require a sum or sums to be paid to the authority on a specified date or dates or periodically.

This will have the effect of mitigating the effect of development to allow it to take place.

The Council’s Community Infrastructure Policy was agreed at Cabinet in December 2010 and sets out the Council’s overall approach towards the collection of contributions towards transport, education, leisure and open space, and the Thames Basins Heath SPA.

It stipulates that planning obligations would only be sought: a) On case by case basis, and b) Taking into account development viability, c) Where they meet the three policy test as set out in the National Planning Policy Frameworks (NPPF) as well as the CIL Regulations, and d) Where there are agreed projects that meet the criteria set out in the advice note issued by the Planning Inspectorate, and e) Where an agreed programme exists to implement the infrastructure.

The Council’s Cabinet subsequently updated the list of projects at its meeting held on 1 November 2012.

Reference should also be made to the preface to the Committee report paper which sets out information on Government Policy.

This Annex sets out the Council’s policy position in respect of contributions and should be read in conjunction with the individual reports which will set out the justification for the contribution sought in each individual case.

Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Saved local plan policies CON1 and CON2 relate to the Thames Basin Special Protection Area (SPA) and state that development which would adversely affect the nature conservation value of a site will only be permitted if it can be subject to conditions that will prevent damaging impacts on wildlife habitats or other natural features of importance on the site or if other material factors are sufficient to override the nature conservation interest. South East Plan policy NRM6 requires adequate measures to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects on the Thames Basin Special Protection Area (SPA).

The SPA is a network of heathland sites which are designated for their ability to provide a habitat for the internationally important bird species of woodlark, nightjar and Dartford warbler. The area is designated as a result of the Birds Directive and the European Habitats Directive and protected in the UK under the provisions set out in the Habitats Regulations. These bird species are particularly subject to disturbance from walkers, dog walkers and cat predation because they nest on or near the ground.

Natural England has indicated that it believes that within 5km of the SPA additional residential development in combination will have a significant effect on the SPA. Thus without mitigation any proposal is contrary to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

7 In April 2008 the Thames Basin Heaths Joint Strategic Partnership agreed a Thames Basin Heaths Delivery Framework to enable the delivery of housing in the vicinity of the SPA without that development having a significant effect on the SPA as a whole. The delivery framework is based on avoidance measures and the policy indicates that these measures can take the form of areas of open space known as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). The policy also states that local authorities will collect developer contributions towards mitigation measures including the provision of SANGs land and joint contributions to the funding of Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) the effects of mitigation measures across the SPA.

The Council has adopted an revised Interim Avoidance Strategy for the SPA whereby, subject to the completion of a relevant legal agreement to provide in perpetuity funding towards, depending on location the Hitches Lane or Hawley Meadows SANG, together with a payment towards SAMM, it would be possible to conclude that the development will have no likely significant impact on the SPA. The sums the Council considers appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the development and how they are calculated, are set out in the policy.

In terms of the tests set out in the NPPF, a planning obligation is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms by mitigating against the impact of an increase in population within 5km of the SPA. The size of contribution sought relates to the population that will be likely to occupy the development. The direct link between the contribution and the development is set out above.

Through the completion of a planning obligation it would be possible to conclude that the development will not have an adverse effect on the SPA and therefore complies with saved policies CON1 and CON2, South East Plan policy NRM6 and the CIL Regulations.

Transport Saved Local Plan policies T14 and T16 seek to ensure that development is served effectively by public transport, cycling or walking and that improvements made necessary by development are to be funded by that development. This relates not only to physical improvements required to permit development to take place (such as sight lines at an entrance to a site), but also to the wider network, seeking to allow development provided that it could be effectively served by public transport, cycling and walking.

The Hampshire Local Transport Plan (LTP) relates to the years 2011 - 2031 and makes reference to the North Hampshire Transport Strategy (NHTS) which covers the areas administered by Hart District Council, Rushmoor and Basingstoke and Deane Borough Councils and that part of the area of Test Valley Borough Council north of the A303.

Within the Fleet/Church Crookham/Elvetham Heath area the County Council has also adopted the Fleet Town Access Plan (FTAP) as a sub-programme of NHTS.

The Hampshire wide Local Transport Plan identifies a number of key themes: a) Supporting the economy through resilient highways; b) Management of traffic; c) The role of public transport; d) Quality of life and place; e) Transport and growth areas

Additional development brings with it additional multi-modal transport impacts. This is additional cars, cycles and use of public transport which has an incremental impact on the transport infrastructure. In line therefore with saved policy T14 it is incumbent on developers to show how they intend the development to be served by public transport, cycling and walking. The provision of a contribution towards either NTHS or FTAP would provide that mitigation.

In terms of the policy tests in the NPPF a contribution will mitigate the effects of the development on the local transport infrastructure. The scale and kind of the contribution sought relates to the increase in transport activity. The details of the direct link between the schemes the contribution will fund and the development are set out in the Committee report.

8 Leisure As part of living in a dwelling its residents will use the local leisure infrastructure to undertake recreation. The impact on infrastructure used for recreation is clearly a material planning consideration. Some of this infrastructure is of a strategic, District-wide, nature while other is more local. At a local level the Council has determined that as a general rule the local infrastructure will be considered at the Parish level. Even where infrastructure is of a District wide nature it is clear that the further from a development itself the less likely that the residents will use that infrastructure. Utilising visitor data, the Council has set “zones of influence” of the individual elements where it is known that residents visit and will have an impact. In terms of the policy tests in the NPPF a contribution will mitigate the effects of the development on the leisure infrastructure. The scale and kind of the contribution sought relates to the increase in leisure activity. The details of the direct link between the projects the contribution will be spent on and the development are set out in the Committee report. Without the necessary obligation additional development would exacerbate the existing deficiency in provision for leisure facilities within the vicinity of the site through an increase in population who would have access to the facilities. The scale of the contribution has been assessed through the Council's Leisure Strategy as being appropriate to mitigate these effects. Education Hampshire County Council has advised in their policy document Developers’ Contributions towards Children’s Services Facilities December 2011 where the availability of school places is particularly critical, contributions should be sought in relation to each individual dwelling. Hampshire County Council has confirmed that there are particular pressures on places at the primary and secondary schools in the Fleet/Church Crookham schools catchment area, and in the catchment of the Robert Mays secondary school in Odiham where any increase in population will add to the demand beyond the available capacity. Full details of the issues are set out in the Community Infrastructure Policy. In both Fleet/Church Crookham and in Odiham programmes for the provision of additional educational facilities are well advanced. The County Council considers it preferable to invest in existing schools where achievable in building terms and where agreement can be reached with the headteacher and governors of the schools involved. Schools are ideally organised into classes of 30 pupils across the age range of the school to support curriculum delivery relevant to the pupil year group and to meet statutory class size regulations whereby no class can be larger than 30 for pupils aged 5 to 7. It is not practical, therefore, for schools to marginally increase their capacity, have larger than ideal class sizes, or create a budget deficit due to the need to employ an additional teacher for very small increases to pupil numbers. At a primary level as a result of this significant level of new housing in the Fleet area discussions have taken place with local schools regarding provision of additional places. At primary level the current plan is to provide additional places at the Tweseldown Infant and Church Crookham Junior schools, Tavistock Infant and All Saints CE(A) Junior schools, and Heatherside Infant and Junior schools. At the secondary level discussions have taken place with the headteacher of Calthorpe Park School on a planned increase in pupil numbers to reflect the need for additional places. A phased approach is being developed to reflect expected demand over the next 15 years with up to 750 additional places being provided. Additional land to the south of the school site will be required to provide the additional playing pitches required to cater for the increase in the size of school. Similarly, there have been discussions with the headteacher of Robert Mays School on a planned increase in pupil numbers to reflect the need for additional places. Additional land to the east and west of the school site is likely to be required to provide the additional playing pitches required to cater for the increase in the size of school. In terms of the policy tests in the NPPF a contribution will mitigate the effects of the development on the education infrastructure. The scale and kind of the contribution sought relates to the facilities being provided. The details of the direct link between the contribution and the development are set out above.

Item No: 101 Page: 12 - 35 14/00449/MAJOR Approve with Pre Conditions

1-9 Dairy Walk Hartley Wintney Hook RG27 8XX

Demolition of existing building and erection of a block of 25 sheltered apartments for the elderly with vehicular access off of High Street via Dairy Walk and the public car park to the east; and associated parking.

Item No: 102 Page: 36 - 56 14/00371/FUL Approve with Pre Conditions

The Chilli Pad Hook Road North Warnborough Hook Hampshire RG29 1ET

Planning application for part redevelopment and change of use to provide for 4 no. dwelling houses.

Item No: 103 Page: 57 - 70 14/00073/FUL Refuse Permission

Land To West Of Church Lane Ewshot Farnham Surrey

New 2 bedroom bungalow on empty plot of land.

Item No: 104 Page: 71 - 78 14/00632/HMC Refuse Permission

Blounce House Blounce South Warnborough Hook RG29 1RX

900mm & 1500mm timber trellis with 20 x 20mm metal support posts @3600 centres - to the top of existing west facing garden wall

Item No: 105 Page: 79 - 83 14/00633/LBC Refuse Listed Building Consent

Blounce House Blounce South Warnborough Hook RG29 1RX

900mm & 1500mm timber trellis with 20 x 20mm metal support posts @3600 centres - to the top of existing west facing garden wall

Item No: 106 Page: 84 - 91 14/00547/HMC Grant Permission

49 Ferndale Road Church Crookham Fleet Hampshire GU52 6LN

Extensions to existing garage and conversion to habitable accommodation.

10 Item No: 107 Page: 92 - 99 14/00678/HMC Grant Permission

39 Tavistock Road Fleet Hampshire GU51 4EJ

Erection of two storey side extension and a front porch with pitched roof over the existing garage. Construction of a pitched roof to existing rear extension.

Item No: 108 Page: 100 - 106 14/00741/FUL Grant Permission

Frogmore Leisure Centre Potley Hill Road Yateley Hampshire GU46 6AG

Erection of new fencing in association with the laying of a new artificial grass playing surface.

COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 101

APPLICATION NO. 14/00449/MAJOR LOCATION 1-9 Dairy Walk Hartley Wintney Hook RG27 8XX PROPOSAL Demolition of existing building and erection of a block of 25 sheltered apartments for the elderly with vehicular access off of High Street via Dairy Walk and the public car park to the east; and associated parking. APPLICANT Renaissance Retirement Ltd CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 28 March 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY 26 May 2014 PLANNING COMMITTEE Cllr Tim Southern WARD MEMBER RECOMMENDATION Approve with Pre Conditions

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Please Note: Map is not to scale 12 Site Plan

13 Proposed ground floor plan

16 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application is reported to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillors Southern and Kinnell to consider the following issues: *Amount of on site parking. *Access through Dairy Walk. *Overlooking. *Design and impact on the character of the Conservation Area. *Mitigation for impact on Parish leisure provision.

A further section drawing was submitted on 26.03.13 to show the height of the proposed development in relation to the buildings on the High Street.

SITE

The application site is located on the northwest side of the High Street in Hartley Wintney. The site has an area of approximately 0.32 hectares and is largely rectangular in shape. Levels on the site are higher than the High Street as illustrated in the submitted section drawing. The site lies outside of the commercial centre and within the Conservation Area.

The site is currently occupied by a block of modern offices and two first floor flats which were constructed in the early 1990s. The existing building is of traditional design with red facing bricks and a grey tiled roof. The rest of the site comprises of a tarmac car parking area; the only landscaping is small shrub/ tree planting to break up the car park spaces. The northeast boundary of the site is open in nature, the northwest and southwest boundaries are marked by 2 metre high red brick walls, and the southeast boundary with properties on the High Street contains a mixture of fencing/ walls.

The main vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is from the public car park on its northeast side; the site is also accessed from the High Street.

The surrounding area comprises of a mix of retail, commercial and residential uses; the buildings vary in size, character and age. Southwest of the site is Weatherby Gardens which is a modern two storey terraced housing. Northwest of the site is a bungalow constructed circa 1960 and a single storey doctors surgery. Northeast of the site is a public car park. Southeast of the site are properties on the High Street which are historic buildings.

PROPOSAL

The application is for demolition of existing building and erection of a block of 25 sheltered apartments (6 x 2- bedroom units and 19 x 1-bedroom units) for the elderly with vehicular access off of High Street via Dairy Walk and the public car park to the east; and associated parking.

The building would be T shaped and the maximum dimensions would be approximately 35 metres by 33.5 metres. The front elevation of the building would face northeast towards the public car park. The building would be part two storey and part three storey; the maximum height of the building would be 10 metres high. The centre section of the roof would have a hidden flat roof area. The second floor level would be served by flat roof half dormers.

The building would have banded render on the ground floor, brickwork on the uppers floors and a slate roof. The windows would be painted timber sliding sash windows.

There would be an undercroft vehicular access from the public car park which would serve 8 parking spaces. The access from the High Street would serve 4 parking spaces plus a disabled parking space.

17 There would be a communal garden area in the southwest side of the site.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

90/19524/FUL- Demolition of existing distribution warehouse, construction of mixed retail, commercial, residential and parking- permission granted 1990.

93/23237/FUL- Change of use of ground floor units for retail use to alternative uses of B1(a) office; A2 (Financial and professional services) and A1 (Retail)- allowed at appeal 1994.

13/02577/MAJOR- Demolition of existing building and erection of a block of 27 sheltered apartments for the elderly with vehicular access off of High Street via Dairy Walk; and associated parking- withdrawn.

The applicant received advice on recently withdrawn application 13/02577/MAJOR regarding the impact on neighbour amenity and access arrangements; amendments have been made in line with this advice.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Hartley Wintney Parish Council (précis):

Objection There is no objection to the principle of development on this site and it is accepted that its current commercial use may be no longer viable. However there are fundamental concerns over the proposed scheme and it is unfortunate that the applicant has still not engaged in pre application discussion with the Parish Council, Preservation Society or local community to consider the concerns raised, in particular, the highways, parking and design aspects of the development.

Highways The revised application has reduced the number of vehicle movements directly out on to A30/A323 roundabout with the introduction of a second access point via the public car park; however, there is nothing to prevent deliveries, drop off, pick ups etc being controlled at this point and there needs to be some means of preventing additional movements in this area, possibly via signage advising all deliveries to go via Monachus Lane.

In addition, the High Street pavement crosses the site entrance and provides both drivers and pedestrians no warning of each other's presence. Although this is an existing feature there is no need to ignore the issue in light of this new development.

The existing layout of the public car park will need to be considered if construction traffic will be passing through it to access the proposed additional site entrance next to the doctors surgery. It is not designed for such heavy loads and there should be no cost to the tax payer for making reparation for the additional wear and tear in the car park or damage to fencing, bollards etc caused as a result.

Parking Just because the average age of residents is mid 70s this does not necessarily preclude them from being car owners; indeed Members here firmly believe that a high proportion of residents drive well into their 80s, especially given the relatively limited access to public transport with the railway station being over 2 miles away and very restricted bus services to local hospital and larger shopping areas. The public pay and display car park is designed for shoppers, business users and visitors to the surgery, not as an excuse for developers to provide sub-standard on-site parking.

The parking standard for this site in accordance with HDC's current Interim Parking Standard is 42.5 (including visitors) With only 12 spaces proposed this remains so far below policy standard that it should not be given serious consideration in its current form. 18

If as the applicant has suggested, residents are unlikely to drive, which is debateable, chances are that they will need services and care provision in their homes which will actually increase the number of vehicles needing to park on site for health care professionals administering such services.

S106 contributions The application notes that the scheme is justified in being exempt from certain s106 contributions. The Parish Council would strongly urge HDC to levy a Parish level contribution as such schemes should not be exempt; the residents are not living in isolation from the rest of the community and they and their families may use community facilities such as open spaces, leisure facilities, community buildings and the community bus (which is the ONLY public transport in the parish to provide access to Winchfield Station, Hook, Basingstoke and Camberley, as well as providing door to door services).

Design and re-use of existing building The revised proposal is still not aesthetically pleasing or in keeping with the local conservation area. We would strongly urge discussion with the Preservation Society to assist in the creation of an architecturally appropriate scheme with sympathetic use of materials, or better still, re-use of the existing building, as seen at Monachus House. There is also concern that the neighbouring houses are affected as the design results in a loss of privacy and overlooking.

Need There is no evidence put forward by the application for whether there is a need for this type of property. The village already has two sheltered accommodation sites at Rosefield Court and Hartford Court and therefore would like to see some assessment to justify an additional scheme of this nature. If the scheme were to be accepted there would need to be a condition limiting the availability of the properties to those over 75.

Highways (Internal):

Access: The are 2 vehicular accesses proposed, both utilise existing accesses one is off the High Street directly onto a small roundabout and the other from the existing public car park.

My initial concerns with the previous application was the number of vehicles exiting onto the A30. It was agreed that the proposals will reduce the number of trips, however as 100% of the traffic movements were onto the A30, I had concerns about highway safety.

The revised submission greatly improves the situation. There are now 8 parking spaces accessed from the existing car park, giving a much safer access to the A30 via the car park. 4 parking spaces are provided accessing onto the A30, however as these are existing parking spaces the traffic flows will not be increased, in fact the surveys undertaken by the applicant shows the flows will decrease, improving the situation at that point. The only additional parking space is the disabled bay which would only add a comparatively small number of vehicular trips from this access.

Parking: Hart Parking Provision Interim Guidance (August 2008) states that for a development this size (Active elderly without resident warden) the parking provision should be taken as for general residential.

The following calculations don't include visitors spaces which can be accommodated within the existing car park.

1 bedroom apartments requires 1 space per apartment, therefore 20 No. requires 20 spaces 2 bedroom apartments requires 2 spaces per apartment, therefore 5 No. requires 10 spaces.

19 Total parking for residents and staff required is 30 spaces.

The site is located close to Monachus Car Park. I have confirmed with the parking manager at HDC that it is acceptable that any overspill of parking can be accommodated within the public car park on a Pay & Display basis only, or the provision along the High Street (subject to parking restrictions). 30 spaces are required and 12 spaces + 1 disabled space are provided. The proposal is to remove 22 spaces from the site.

Hart Parking Provision Interim Guidance (August 2008) states that Parking for disabled people should be additional to the maximum parking standards. So officially 12 parking spaces are provided for the proposals plus an additional disabled parking space.

I agree that a compromise should be reached due to the sustainable location of the site (Local transport provides services to Farnborough, Alton and Basingstoke, Camberley (The Meadows) & Hook with onward links to Basingstoke) and the location in relation to the large public car park adjacent to the site.

The applicant's justification for the reduced parking numbers is that the occupants are elderly and have less use for a car. The applicant has produced surveys and indeed have a vast experience in sites like this over the country justifying their reasoning. The site will have access to a people carrier which will reduce the number of vehicular movements in and out of the site, as well as reduce the need for a car.

There are also 4 electric mobility scooters, the Hart parking standards are also maximum numbers of bays required.

The age limit for an application of this type is 55+, I would have concerns if this was the case for Dairy Walk. The assumption that people over 55 yrs of age are less likely to drive is I feel not realistic. However the applicant has agreed to my original request of having a condition applied to set a lower age limit. It has been proposed that this age limit should be national retirement age. I am satisfied that this is reasonable, based on the sustainability of the site, as well as the public parking facilities available for the site. People retiring at this age will use the road network outside peak times and indeed be issued with a bus pass or similar to encourage them to use public transport. Overall the application is reducing the number of vehicular trips to the site and therefore the need for car parking is also reduced.

It is for these reasons that I am willing to accept this reduced parking provision but only on the condition that the minimum age restriction for the occupants is conditioned to be the National Retirement Age and above.

Cycle storage: Hart Parking Provision Interim Guidance (August 2008) states that 1 space should be provided for 1 bedroom apartment and 2 spaces provided for 2 bedroom apartments. Therefore 20 + 10 = 30 cycle are required within appropriate cycle stored. This must be accessible, weatherproof and secure.

A total of 6 spaces are provided as well as 4 No. Electric pavement buggy spaces.

Although the cycle storage provision is below the required number I accept that the more elderly the resident the less likely they are to use a bike. It is for this reason that I am willing to accept the cycle provision provided again on the condition that the minimum age restriction for the occupants is National Retirement Age and above.

Bin storage: This is located close to the existing main car park and is accessible and deemed adequate.

Parking layout: There is sufficient room for vehicles to turn within the parking area allowing them to enter and exit in a forward gear.

20 Transport Contribution: The Transport Statement states that 95 vehicular movements per day are connected with the existing office and residential uses. It also states that 45 vehicle movements per day will be generated by the proposals. This reduction in overall traffic generated by the proposals is verified by the Hampshire County Council Transport Contribution Policy.

This application will not increase the number of multi-modal trips for the proposed development, and therefore no transport contribution will be sought.

No Highway objection subject to condition included that restricts the minimum age of occupants to National Retirement Age and above.

Conservation Officer (Internal) comments on previous scheme:

The existing block proposed for demolition is of no significance to be worth retaining.

The design, scale and proportion of the new block needs to enhance the character of the conservation area and overall the design element does this. It has detail and has well balanced features. No details of rainwater goods or vents, have been illustrated. It would be preferable to have this detail, as it can affect the appearance of a building; this could be conditioned.

Issues arise with the scale of the block on the site, this equates to the position. The principle of another storey in height is not objectionable in this case, due to the design and the site and, in some respects the use. However, the position and height together pose an issue for the adjacent plots and could provide a negative impact on the plots to the West. It would be preferable to reduce the proximity of the block, in particular units 8, 17 and 26 on the boundary with the surgery, completely pulling the building back, allowing for amenity space or for further parking. Alternatively, the building could be reduced in height at this boundary.

Overall no objection in principle to the general design, it is considered to enhance the character of the area, subject to the changes as mentioned above and associated conditions.

Environmental Health (Internal):

The proposed development is located on an area which has been previously occupied by a yard and the footprint of a depot building. As it is not fully clear, what activities or processes may have occurred on site, there is a potential for the underlying soils to have been impacted by contamination. No objection subject to further details being secured via condition.

Ecology (Internal):

I have no record of protected species which refer to the site itself and the proposals will not directly affect any designated sites of nature conservation value.

The ecological report found no evidence of roosting bats in the building and the site did not have any potential to support other protected species.

I have no objection to this application on the grounds of biodiversity.

Hampshire County Council Archaeology:

The site lies just outside of the historic core and has been subject to disturbance from previous development. Therefore there are no archaeological issues I wish to raise in this instance.

Tree Officer (Internal):

No comments received.

Leisure (Internal):

No comments to make.

Housing (Internal):

The housing department acknowledges that a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision has been offered for this scheme.

Following a detailed analysis of the viability report submitted with this application, it has been established that the sum of £295,000 can be contributed to the provision of affordable housing in the District. The housing department accepts this offer, taking account of the particular circumstances for this development and the results of the viability analysis. This does not set a precedent for other similar schemes as each site will be examined on an individual basis.

Waste (Internal):

The vehicular access via Dairy Walk is not suitable for a refuse vehicle. The only place I think we could collect the bins from is from the car park entrance as shown on the attached plan. The bins will need to be placed out for collection on the collection day.

Drainage (Internal):

No comments received.

Thames Water:

With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer.

With regard to sewerage infrastructure capacity, we would not have any objection to the above planning application.

NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS

Ten letters of objection have been received from seven objectors raising the following main points: *Three storeys is too high and was deemed too high when the existing building was first applied for. *The building should not be visible from the High Street. *Design is out of keeping with the character of the Conservation Area. *Existing building should be converted. *Loss of light and privacy. *Noise, dust and pollution during the construction period. *Insufficient parking, cycle storage, and mobility scooter storage. *Access via Dairy Walk would cause highway safety issues. *Access for emergency services. *Query regarding occupation restriction to ‘national retirement age’.

22 POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES

The site has been identified as having significant archaeological interest. The Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record (AHBR), maintained by Hampshire County Council, is an index to the known archaeology sites and finds, historic buildings, designed and historic landscapes, parks and gardens and industrial monuments of Hampshire. It also holds records on archaeological fieldwork and excavations.

Article 4 Directions are issued by the Council in exceptional circumstances where specific control over development is required, primarily where the character of an area of acknowledged importance would be threatened. The presence of an Article 4 Direction does not preclude development but simply requires planning permission to be secured from the Council before any specified works take place.

Conservation Areas are designated by the District Council. New development is allowed within Conservation Areas but in considering whether to grant planning permission for new development or to allow demolition within a conservation area, special attention must be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area (Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990).

The development lies within 5km of the Thames Basins Heath Special Protection Area (SPA). This is an area that has been identified as being of international importance for the breeding, feeding, wintering or the migration of rare and vulnerable species of birds found within European Union countries. They are European designated sites, classified under the ‘Birds Directive 1979’ which provides enhanced protection given by the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) status all SPAs also hold. New residential development in particular must be strictly controlled within areas up to 5km from SPA's unless appropriate mitigation strategies have been put in place.

The development lies within 500m of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). SSSI's are designated by Natural England and are the country's very best wildlife and geological sites. They are legally protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006.

Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006

GEN1 - General policy for development

GEN4 - General Design Policy

GEN9 - Contaminated Land

ALTG13 - Affordable Housing

URB1 - Definition of Areas

URB7 - Loss of Employment Uses

URB12 - Residential Development Criteria

CON1 - Nature Conserv European Designations

CON2 - Nature Consern Designations

CON5 - Nature conserv Species Protected

CON13 - Conservation Areas General Policy

CON14 - Conservation Areas Building Demolition

T14 - Transport and Development

T16 - Improvements Made Necessary by Dev

South East Plan 2006 – 2026

NRM6 - THAMES BASIN HEATHS SPECIAL PROTECTION AREA

CONSIDERATIONS

1- Principle of Development

The application site lies within the Hartley Wintney settlement boundary. Saved policy URB12 of the Local Plan is the key policy against which this application should be assessed. This requires new residential development to make optimum use of the site at densities commensurate with good innovative design in relation to site characteristics. In addition the policy requires development to ensure that there isn't a material loss of amenity for adjoining residents. The proposal should also not result in the loss of any local feature of note such as protected trees and it should provide an appropriate mix of dwelling types and sizes. As such the principle of development is acceptable subject to meeting the relevant criteria and any other relevant Development Plan Polices or other material considerations are taken into account.

2- Accessibility

The site lies within the Hartley Wintney settlement boundary and within the village centre. The site is approximately 40 metres from the High Street where there are a range of shops and bus stops which offer services to Farnborough, Alton and Basingstoke, Camberley (The Meadows) and Hook with onward links to Basingstoke. There is a doctors surgery next door to the application site. The proposal is considered to contribute to sustainable development in so far as it contributes to the District's housing supply in a sustainable location. In respect of the environmental aspect it is considered that the proposal protects the natural, built and historic environment; this will be discussed in detail in sections 4 and 7 of this report.

3- Loss of office use

Saved policies URB7 and URB12 (v) state that development which would result in the loss of an existing employment site lawfully used for B1 or B2 uses will only be permitted if the present use harms the character or amenities of its surroundings, the site is not capable of continuing satisfactorily in an employment use or there would be substantial benefits to the locality.

Paragraph 51 of the NPFF states that local planning authorities should identify and bring back into residential use empty housing and buildings in line with local housing and empty homes strategies. They should normally approve planning applications for change to residential use and any associated development from commercial buildings (currently in the B use classes) where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area, provided that there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate.

The offices are currently empty. The application is supported by marketing information which states that the property has been subject to a full marketing campaign since July 2012 but has received no offers for office 24 use. It also mentions that there is little demand for offices in Hartley Wintney presently. Therefore it is considered that the loss of B1 use would be acceptable in this instance.

4- Design and impact on the character of the Conservation Area

Saved policy URB12 allows new residential development provided that the proposal is sympathetic in scale, design, massing, height, layout, siting and density, both in itself and in relation to adjoining buildings, spaces and views.

Saved policies GEN1 and GEN4 permit development where, amongst other requirements, the design, scale, materials, massing, height, and prominence of the proposal is in character with the local area.

Saved policy CON13 states that proposals for development which fail to meet the objectives of conserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a designated conservation area will not be permitted. Saved policy CON14 only permits the demolition of buildings within the Conservation Area where there is no harm to the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area and where there are detailed proposals for the re-use of the site.

Section 12 of the NPPF: 'Conserving and enhancing the historic environment' paragraph 131 states that in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and that new development should make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

The application site lies on the edge of the Hartley Wintney Conservation Area and within character area 2 (The High Street) within the Hartley Wintney Conservation Area Character Appraisal. This mentions that most of the buildings on the High Street are of historic interest although there has been some modern infilling. The buildings vary immensely in their height and details, although they largely follow a common building line on the back of the pavement and three storeys is the maximum. The accompanying map shows that the buildings immediately in front of the application site which front the High Street are 'positive buildings' and that the nearest listed building is Natwest bank which is further north on the High Street.

The existing building is modern, constructed in the early 1990s; it is considered that it does not have any significant architectural or historic interest and as such that the demolition would not result in harm to the character of the Conservation Area.

The development proposed is larger than the existing; however it is considered that the footprint sits comfortably within the plot and as such does not represent overdevelopment of the site. The built form does not extend across the entire site and allows for parking and amenity space in the southwest corner of the site.

Concern has been raised that the building at three storeys high is too high. Whilst the proposal includes an extra storey to the existing building the increase in height is only 1.7 metres. Given the variety of building heights in the local area it is considered that this height would not result in an unacceptable impact to the character of the local area. In addition the building has been designed with varying heights, breaking the building down into smaller elements, to reduce the apparent massing of the building.

The applicant has provide a section drawing to show that whilst the application site is higher than the High Street and the proposed building would be 1.7 metres taller than the existing, it would not be visible from the High Street given the separation distances involved. As you walk further away from the site i.e. up Fleet Road towards the church, the building would become visible (the existing building is visible from this point); however it is considered that this would not be harmful to the character of the Conservation Area, as it would fit within the overall built form of the area.

25 It is considered that the general design of the building is in keeping with the local area. The window proportions reduce at upper floor level providing an appropriate fenestration hierarchy. The Council's Conservation Officer considers that 'the design, scale and proportion of the new building is acceptable; it has detail and has well balanced features'.

Further details of materials, the bin store, boundary treatments and landscaped areas can be secured via condition.

Each habitable room would have an opening window and sufficient provision of natural light. Communal amenity space is provided. Therefore it is considered that the development would provide adequate living conditions for the future occupiers.

The applicant has provided a 'Designing out crime' statement which mentions a number of measures which have been incorporated into the design for example: *Entrances to the building have good public surveillance and are well lit. *Secure building techniques i.e. security pin doors, lockable double glazed windows and doors, security alarms etc. *The communal garden would be secured by railings and boundary planting. These measures are considered acceptable.

The proposed development would comprise of a mixture of 1 and 2 bed flats. In terms of older persons accommodation, it is recognised that the smaller units are most appropriate. Therefore the mix of flat sizes are considered acceptable.

5- Impact on neighbour amenity

Saved policies GEN1 and URB12 permit development where there is no material loss of amenity to existing and adjoining uses.

The proposed building would be located 16-26 metres from the rear elevation of properties fronting the High Street; these buildings are a mixture of commercial and residential uses. The proposed building would be 21- 34 metres from the rear elevations of dwellings in Weatherby Gardens. It is acknowledged that there would be windows which would face these properties, however given the separation distances as mentioned previously and the fact that there are first floor windows on the existing building which face these properties, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable level of overlooking, overbearing impact or loss of light.

The applicant has reduced the part of the building next to 2 Chapter Terrace from three storeys to two storeys since previous application 13/02577/MAJOR. There would also be no windows on the section that directly faces towards the garden of this property. The proposed building would be located 2 metres from the common boundary but 14 metres from the actual dwelling; given these separation distances it is considered that it would not result in an unacceptable impact in terms of overbearing impact, loss of light or loss of privacy.

The access to the parking and turning area would be adjacent to the common boundaries with 2 Chapter Terrace and properties in Weatherby Gardens; however given the expected number of trips per day it is considered that there would not be an unacceptable impact in terms of noise or disturbance.

The proposed building would be closer to the doctors surgery than the existing building. There may be some loss of light to the administrative office of the doctors surgery which faces the application site, however it is considered that it would not be an unacceptable amount.

26 Concern has been raised regarding disturbance during the construction period. In the event that planning permission is granted it is recommended that there is a condition to limit working hours to protect neighbour amenity. A construction method statement can also be secured via condition which would include measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction.

Overall it is considered that the proposed development would not result in unacceptable harm to neighbour amenity in compliance with saved policies GEN1 and URB12.

6- Parking and highways issues

6.1- Access

Previous application 13/02577/MAJOR was withdrawn partly due to the access which was solely from the High Street. This scheme has been amended so that there would be two access'; one from the High Street and the other from the public car park. There would be 8 parking spaces accessed from the public car park. There would be 4 parking spaces accessed from the High Street, however as these are existing parking spaces the traffic flows will not be increased, in fact the surveys undertaken by the applicant shows the flows will decrease, improving the situation at that point. The only additional parking space is the disabled bay which would only add a comparatively small number of vehicular trips from this access. The Council's Highways Officer is content with the access proposals.

The Parish Council have raised concerns that there is nothing to prevent deliveries from the High Street entrance. Given that there is nothing to prevent deliveries to the existing from this access, and the proposed use would generate less trips, it would be unreasonable to impose a restrictive condition regarding deliveries.

The Parish Council have also raised concern that the High Street pavement crosses the site entrance and provides both drivers and pedestrians no warning of each other's presence. Again as there is only one additional parking space accessed from this access and the number of trips from the proposed use are less than the existing, it is considered that the highway safety at this point would be improved.

6.2- Parking and cycle storage

Hart District Council's Parking Provision Guidance advises that active elderly accommodation without a resident warden should provide the same amount of on site parking provision as general residential accommodation. On this basis the accommodation should provide 44 spaces. The applicant proposes 12 spaces plus 1 disabled space (Hart Parking Provision Guidance states that parking for disabled people should be additional to the maximum parking standards).

The parking guidance states that if a developer considers that this would give rise to an inappropriate level of parking provision then they should provide evidence with the application justifying their position. In this case the applicant has submitted a transport report looking at the likely parking requirements of the development. The report looked at 12 similar types of development and the average peak demand was 0.4 spaces per apartment (this included all residents, visitor and servicing vehicles, including vehicles that may have parked on the adjoining highway). The data came from a limited number of sources, therefore may not be wholly representative of the parking requirements for this type of development; however it gives a good steer that applying general residential parking standards for this development is not appropriate.

Using the applicant's figure of 0.4 spaces per unit means that 10 spaces should be provided; the applicant has provided slightly more as they have provided 12 spaces plus 1 disabled space. 27

In addition to the applicant's justification it is also relevant that the site is located in a sustainable location within walking distance of local shops, services and public transport facilities (as set out in detail in section 2 of this report). It is considered that visitor spaces are not required in this instance given the adjacent public car park which can be used.

A recently allowed appeal for a residential scheme in the centre of Fleet is relevant. This scheme was refused as it provided less on site parking than is advised in the parking guidance. The Inspector considered that the sustainable location meant that not all future occupants for a development of this type would need or be likely to require car use which would mean additional car parking spaces would not be required. Furthermore the Inspector mentioned that 'in the unlikely situation of additional car parking requirements, there are restrictions on car parking on the main busy roads in the immediate vicinity of the site. The enforcement of these would prevent overspill car parking that might pose a risk to highway safety. There is also a public car park nearby and off-street parking available in the wider area to the south to accommodate car parking. There were no significant highway safety issues that were apparent with the use of such areas which were located off the main roads. Thus, there would not be a significant risk to the highway safety of users even in the rare event that additional car parking was required by users of the development.' The same could be said of the scheme proposed here; in the unlikely situation of additional car parking requirements it is considered that there would not be any identified highway safety risk. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that 'development should only be reused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe'.

The Design and Access statement mentions that the house manager will have a 'residents people carrier' vehicle for use for weekly shopping trips to the nearby supermarkets and for other residential outings, thereby further reducing the need for households to be car owners. This is positive in terms of sustainability but is not something that could be secured through the planning application via condition or legal agreement as it would fail to meet the relevant tests.

The parking provision guidance states that cycle storage should be in accordance with general residential standards which means that 30 cycle spaces are required. A total of 6 spaces are provided as well as 4 electric pavement buggy spaces. Although the cycle storage provision is below the required number the more elderly the resident the less likely they are to use a bike. Therefore the provision proposed is considered acceptable.

It is therefore considered that there would be sufficient on site parking and cycle provision. Given that reduced parking and cycle provision is proposed due to the age of the future occupiers this needs to be secured via a legal agreement. Concern has been raised regarding the Highways Officer's comments on restricting the development to 'national retirement age' as there is no such thing. This is agreed and the applicant is willing to accept a clause to restrict the occupiers to state pension age. A clause has been added to the draft agreement which states that 'the development shall only be occupied by persons of state pension age or above, or by persons living as part of a single household with such a person or persons'.

6.3- Turning There is sufficient room for vehicles to turn within the parking area allowing them to enter and exit in a forward gear.

6.4- Bin storage Bin storage is located near the car park access point; the Council's waste team has confirmed that the bins will need to be placed out for collection on the collection day.

6.5- Other issues Concern has been raised regarding potential damage to the public car park during the construction period. This is not a planning matter.

28 7- Impact on protected species

The ecological report submitted found no evidence of roosting bats in the building and the site did not have any potential to support other protected species. Therefore it can reasonably be concluded that no protected species would be harmed, as such the proposal complies with saved policy CON5.

8- Affordable housing

Saved local plan ALTGEN13 states that "the Council will seek to negotiate" up to 40% of the proposed scheme as affordable on site provision. The supporting text to the saved policy also states that this target is made on housing need and "must be balanced against considerations of economic viability and what can realistically be achieved on site". This was reinforced in the Cabinet paper on Developer Contributions approved in December 2010.

Following a detailed analysis of viability provided by the applicant, the provision of on-site affordable housing on this particular development is not thought to be viable. This is due to the specific requirements and restrictions of this site.

Whilst on-site affordable housing cannot be provided on-site due to viability reasons the applicant is offering a financial contribution in lieu of affordable housing to be used for the provision of affordable housing within the District. The applicant initially offered £66,932. The Council commissioned an independent viability assessor to assess the applicant's viability evidence which found some flaws with their assessment; therefore the applicant revised the contribution to £295,000. The Council's viability assessor found this to be reasonable. This contribution will need to be secured via a legal agreement. The trigger for this would be on occupation of the 20th unit; accounting for finance costs (to fund the affordable housing payment) the level of financial contribution will vary depending on the timing of the affordable housing contribution payment and if the trigger is on occupation of the 20th unit the applicant is able to offer £46,000 more.

9- Climate change

The NPPF paragraph 93 states that planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy.

An energy statement has been provided with indicative energy saving measures. The code level 3 energy standard is now incorporated in the building regulations therefore there is no need to repeat this through a planning condition.

10- Contaminated land issues

Saved policy GEN9 states that proposals for development on land that is, or there is reason to believe may be, contaminated, will be permitted provided that the applicant has carried out and submitted a site survey to establish the nature and extent of the contamination which, together with the sensitivity of the proposed use to the contamination, other environmental implications and the effectiveness of the proposed remedial measures do not put the development and its users at risk.

29 there is a potential for the underlying soils to have been impacted by contamination. The Environmental Health team have advised that further details in relation to contamination are a secured via condition.

11- Community infrastructure and the SPA

Please refer to Annex A to this report for the policy justification for contributions towards Community Infrastructure and the SPA.

SPA:

The site is located within 5km from the nearest component of the SPA. Under the Council's Avoidance Strategy a total contribution of £86,199.62 towards the Hitches Lane SANG and £7,638.31 towards SAMM would ensure that the development does not have a significant effect on the SPA and consequently comply with the relevant policies of the Local and South East Plans.

It should be noted that sheltered accommodation for the elderly, whether for one or two bedroom accommodation, is predominantly occupied by single person households. For this reason the applicant has assumed that the proposed apartments would have an occupancy rate of 1.3 persons; this is considered reasonable and a similar approach has been used elsewhere in the District. Therefore using this occupancy rate and under the Council's policy it is estimated that the proposed development would have an average occupancy of 32.5 persons which is a net gain of 27.66 persons. This figure has then been multiplied by the tariff per person which is £2,968 and then the 5% administrative charge has been added. The same approach has been taken to calculate the SAMM contribution.

As there are two existing residential units on the site the applicant has requested that the SPA/ SAMM contribution is paid on occupation of the third unit; this is considered reasonable.

Transport:

The Transport Statement states that 95 vehicular movements per day are connected with the existing office and residential uses on the site. It also predicts that 42 vehicle movements would be generated by the proposal. This reduction in overall traffic generated by the proposals is verified by the Hampshire County Council Transport Contribution Policy. Therefore there would be no increase in use of the transport infrastructure.

Leisure:

The applicant considers that the elderly occupiers of the proposed development would not result in any pressure on existing leisure provision at the parish and district level. This is not accepted as there will be some impact, but lesser impact than if it were family housing. However notwithstanding this the applicant's viability assessment has shown that in allowing for a SPA/SAMM contribution of £93,837.93 and allowing for an appropriate developers profit, the scheme would only generate a surplus of £295,000 which as indicated in section 8 of this report would be used for affordable housing which is corporate priority of the Council. As mentioned previously the Council has commissioned an independent viability assessor to assess the applicant's viability evidence which found their revised assessment to be reasonable.

Education:

As the proposed is for those of state pension age (this will be secured in the legal agreement), there is no requirement for a contribution towards education as the development is not for family accommodation.

30 Conclusion:

Provided that a legal agreement is completed to secure the financial contributions as detailed above, there would be sufficient mitigation for the proposal's impact on the SPA. However taking the overall viability of the proposal in line with the Council's policies, contributions can only be secured in the sum of £295,000. It is considered that in line with the Council's priorities this should be for affordable housing.

CONCLUSION

The site is located in a sustainable location within the village centre of Hartley Wintney therefore the principle of development would be acceptable in accordance with saved policy URB12 and the guidance in the NPPF. The applicant has provided evidence that the site is not capable of continuing satisfactorily in an employment use in accordance with saved policy URB7. It is considered that the proposed design is acceptable and would not result in unacceptable harm to the character of the Hartley Wintney Conservation Area. Given that the development is for sheltered accommodation in a sustainable location it is considered that the level of on site parking provision is acceptable; the access arrangements are also considered acceptable. It is considered that there would be no material detrimental impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties. The ecological report submitted found no evidence of roosting bats in the building and the site did not have any potential to support other protected species. Provided that a legal agreement is completed to secure financial contributions towards the Hitches Lane SANG as mitigation for the impact on the SPA, financial contributions for off-site affordable housing, and to restrict occupation to persons of national retirement age, the proposed development would comply with the relevant saved policies of the Hart District Local Plan and with the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION - Approve with Pre Conditions

A. The Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to GRANT PERMISSION subject to the completion of a Planning Obligation by 25.05.14 to secure: 1- SPA mitigation 2- Off site affordable housing contribution 3- Restrict occupation to persons of state pension age or above.

And subject to the following conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2 No development shall take place until details and samples of all external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is/are satisfactory and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

3 No development shall take place until large scale drawings of all the windows and doors, including materials, method(s) of opening, finishes, and window reveal details, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details, and shall be retained as such.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan. 31

4 No development shall take place until details of the design and materials of all external rainwater goods have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the materials shall not subsequently be altered without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the character of the building and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

5 No development shall take place until details of the boundary treatment for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully completed before the development hereby permitted is first occupied.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in order to preserve the appearance of the locality.

6 No development shall take place on the bin store until full details of the bin store (plans and elevations) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The bin store will be built in accordance with the approved plans and be brought into use at or before first occupation.

Reason: To ensure that the development is properly planned and to satisfy saved Local Plan Policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan

7 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for:

i. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development iv. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate v. wheel washing facilities vi. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction vii. a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works

Reason: To protect the amenities of the locality and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

8 Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until conditions 1 to 4 have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition 4 has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

1. Site Characterisation An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk 32 assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include:

(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;

(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to: human health, property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, adjoining land, groundwaters and surface waters, ecological systems, archeological sites and ancient monuments;

(iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.

2. Submission of Remediation Scheme A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

3. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

4. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 1, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 2, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

33 Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 3.

9 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Hard details shall include, as appropriate, proposed finished levels and/or contours, means of enclosure of unbuilt open areas, car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas, hard surfacing materials and artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, refuse or other storage units, signage, lighting, external services, manholes, etc.).

Soft landscape details shall include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant establishment), schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes and proposed densities where appropriate.

Details shall further include a proposed timetable for planting and laying out of hard surfaces and roads.

Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscaping and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

10 Hard and soft landscaping works shall be fully carried out in accordance with the approved details, including the approved timetable, and to a reasonable standard in accordance with the relevant provisions of appropriate British Standards or other recognised codes of good practice. The Council shall be notified in writing of the completion of the scheme or any agreed phase of such scheme.

Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years after approved completion, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of similar species, size and number as originally approved, unless the Council gives its written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscaping and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby residential occupiers and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate parking to prevent the likelihood of on-street car parking and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan.

13 The approved cycle storage facilities shall not be used for any purpose other than the storage of cycles.

34 Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate cycle storage and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan.

INFORMATIVES

1 The applicant is advised that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, bats are a protected species and it is illegal to intentionally or recklessly damage, disturb or destroy a bat or its habitat. If any evidence of bats is found on site, Natural England must be informed and a licence for development obtained from them prior to works continuing. For further information go to www.naturalengland.org.uk or contact Natural England (S.E. regional office) on 0238 028 6410.

2 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance the applicant received advice on recently withdrawn application 13/02577/MAJOR regarding the impact on neighbour amenity and access arrangements; amendments have been made in line with this advice. The applicant was advised of the issues relating to the SPA and affordable housing as part of the processing of the application and was assisted to complete a Section 106 Planning Obligation to address these concerns. Consequently the application was considered acceptable.

B. In the event that the requirements as set out in Recommendation A above are not progressed to the satisfaction of the Head of Regulatory Services by 25.05.14, the application be refused for the following reasons

1 The site is located within 5km of the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which forms part of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). In the absence of any evidence that the test of no alternatives under Regulation 62 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 can be satisfied, or evidence that there are grounds of overriding public interest, the proposed development, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, would be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the SPA. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policies CON1 and CON2 in Hart District Local Plan, and policy NRM6 in the South East Plan.

2 The proposed development does not make adequate provision for the provision of affordable housing. As such the proposal is contrary saved policy ALTGEN13 in the Hart District Local Plan.

3 In the absence of a completed legal agreement restricting the occupation of the proposed development to persons of state pension age or above, the proposed level of car parking is considered inadequate. As such the proposal is contrary to saved local plan policies GEN1 and T14.

INFORMATIVE

1 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance the applicant was advised of the issues relating to affordable housing, impact on a European site and restricting the occupation to persons of state pension age, as part of the processing of the application and was asked to complete a Section 106 Planning Obligation to address these concerns and offered assistance in this. However, it was not completed within a reasonable period of time, of which the applicant was advised, and consequently planning permission was refused for the reasons set out above.

COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 102

APPLICATION NO. 14/00371/FUL LOCATION The Chilli Pad Hook Road North Warnborough Hook Hampshire RG29 1ET PROPOSAL Planning application for part redevelopment and change of use to provide for 4 no. dwelling houses. APPLICANT Mr E Mason CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 10 May 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY 18 April 2014 PLANNING COMMITTEE Cllr Stephen Gorys WARD MEMBER RECOMMENDATION Approve with Pre Conditions

36 Site Plan

37 Proposed ground floor plan

38 Proposed first floor plan

39 40 41 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The application is reported to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Crookes to consider the amount of on site parking which does not comply with Hart District Council's Parking Provision Guidance. It is noted that roofplan drawing 11B is not accurate. However as the roofplan shown on the site plan drawing is accurate it is not necessary to ask for plan 11B to be amended; in the event that planning permission is granted drawing 11B would not be included on the decision notice as an approved plan. Amended plans and information were received on 10/04/14 which show the following changes/ additional information: *Amended parking layout to avoid having parking spaces land where a neighbour has right of access to the land (no change to the number of spaces). *The rear section of the building to be demolished would retain a 2 metre high brick wall to form a boundary with The Barn House. *Letter of confirmation from owner and owner of the land to the east that Thames Water can have access through to the pumping station. *Swept path analysis to show that access is possible through the site to the pumping station. *Additional marketing information. *Clarification that the one parking space permitted as part of the 12/00787/FUL scheme which overlaps with the application site can be accommodated. *Additional drainage information. The Parish Council, Highways Officer and neighbours were re notified of these changes. A further swept path analysis drawing was received on 23.04.14 to show that amended parking layout does not prevent access to and from the existing garages at 1 and 7 Castlebridge Cottages; given that no changes were proposed to the scheme it was considered unnecessary to re notify the Parish Council and neighbours in this instance.

THE SITE The application site is located on the west side of Hook Road in North Warnborough. It lies within the North Warnborough rural settlement boundary and North Warnborough Conservation Area. The Basingstoke Canal Conservation lies just east of the site. The application site has area of approximately 0.13 hectares, is largely rectangular in shape and is generally level. The Jolly Miller Public House (as previously named) originally fronted the pavement in line with the cottages beyond, but it was rebuilt in 1908 in the mock-Tudor style prevalent at that time. It is a substantial two storey building which has been altered and significantly extended to the sides and rear. To the front and rear of the building are substantial tarmac parking areas. There is also a garden area to the rear of the building. The properties in the local area vary in age, size and character. Jolly Miller Cottage is a small cottage which is located immediately north of the application site; it is listed as a positive building in the North Warnborough Conservation Area appraisal. The Barn House and Strete Farm are large detached houses which are located north of Jolly Miller Cottage; they are both grade II listed buildings. South of the site are Castlebridge Cottages which are terraced properties which are also grade II listed. The building lies within flood zone 1; the top east and west corners of the site lie within flood zones 2 and 3. The North Warnborough pumping station lies west of the application site and is currently accessed between The Barn House and Strete Farm. The Warnborough Green SSSI lies to the west of the site on the opposite side of Hook Road.

PROPOSALS The application is for part re-development and change of use to provide four dwellings. There would be three three-bed dwellings and one two-bed dwelling. A large section on the north side of the rear elevation, a small section in the middle of the rear elevation, and a small section on the south side of the building would be demolished.

42 There would be a small porch extension on the front elevation and a small lean-to extension on the rear elevation. There would also be changes to the window/ door layout, with the most significant being new doors on the front elevation for access to the new dwellings. There would be a private rear garden for each dwelling; it appears that these would be enclosed by 1.8 metre brick walls but full details have not been submitted at this stage. There would be parking to the front and side of the site. There would be a bin collection area to the rear of the site.

PLANNING HISTORY There is extensive planning history to this site; however as this relates to extensions and alterations to the public house/ restaurant use it is not relevant to this current application.

CONSULTEES RESPONSES Odiham Parish Council comments on original plans:

There is no blue line shown on this application, but Odiham Parish Council believes that the land immediately to the west of the application site is in the same ownership.

OPC objects to this planning application. Despite there being no possible parking overspill from the site, the applicant appears to have an agreement not to meet Hart's own parking standard. The effect on the Conservation Area could be minimal if the applicant had not moved the red line marking the rear of the site westwards, reducing the overall space available. OPC therefore considers that the applicant has chosen to under provide parking.

The reduction in the size of the site included for this permission has also meant that the garden for no 4 juts out into the potential access to the area behind this site. This would mean that there is no possibility of agreeing a right of occasional access by heavy vehicles required to maintain or repair the pumping station to the rear of the site. In 2012, the only route available for delivering new pumps, when the old ones had persistently failed, was through the car park of the then Chilli Pad. These pumps continue to experience problems, causing risk of sewage flooding to properties to the north of the Chilli Pad. OPC therefore regards as a very serious infrastructure requirement the need to make it possible for such access to continue on an occasional basis, subject to agreement between the landowner and Thames Water.

OPC questions the appropriateness for the conservation area of the use of glass bricks to the rear of the building.

OPC also wishes to understand the impact of these proposals on approved application 12/00787/FUL, since it relied on parking space in the car park of the Chilli Pad, which is now no longer provided.

Odiham Parish Council comments on amended plans:

No objection now the parking has been increased.

Officer comment: The amended plans did not increase the on site parking provision.

Highways (Internal): The existing accesses are retained which is acceptable, the suitability of these will not be reviewed. Parking: Hart Planning Department determine the parking provision for residential developments The manoeuvres on the proposed driveway is adequate, swept path analysis shows turning movements are possible and allow a large car to enter and exit in a forward gear. Refuse collection:

43 The Streetcare Officer will determine to suitability of the bin collection point location. I do however have concerns about the freighter reversing from Hook Road over a distance of approx. 25m to access the bin collection point. Manual for streets does limit this to 12m and due to the nature of Hook road would be concerned over highway safety. However an assessment will be made once the existing freighter collection movements, for the new properties to the south east of the site are clarified. Cycle & bin storage A storage facility is provided for 2 cycles for each apartment, although clarification is required as to what form these are in. They must be weatherproof, secure and accessible. There is access to the rear gardens via a rear ally allowing good accessibility. Transport Contribution The building ceased being a public house late 2012 early 2013, which is within 5 years and so the existing trips will be counted which will be more than generated by the development. This application will not increase the number of multi-modal trips for the proposed development, and therefore no transport contribution will be sought. No highway objection subject to confirmation of: *How the refuse freighter collects the bins for the properties sharing the access, SE of the site. *What form the cycle storage facility takes.

Tree Officer (Internal): No objections.

Environmental Health (Internal): It is noted that the four properties feature rear gardens and areas of communal open space. As these areas are not currently gardens it is assumed that topsoil and subsoil material will be brought onto site as a growing medium. It is requested that the details, such as the source location and chemical composition of any import soil is submitted to this department for review and comment to determine suitability, by way of a planning condition.

Ecology (Internal): I have no record of protected species which refer to the site itself and the proposals will not directly affect any designated sites of nature conservation value. The Basingstoke Canal SSSI is located to the east of the site but further to the comments from Natural England this site will not be affected providing the recommended condition in their response is applied. The ecological survey assessed the potential for protected species on the site. The building was assessed for the presence of bats and no evidence was found. Roosting opportunities were very limited. However, I would remind the applicants that in the small chance that bats are discovered during construction then works must cease immediately and Natural England should be contacted. Any further work would then be likely to require a licence to proceed. There was evidence of nesting birds on the site (house martin and jackdaw) and damage and disturbance to nests must avoided during works. There were no other protected species issues. I have no objection to this proposal on the grounds of biodiversity subject to condition.

Leisure (Internal): Recommendation: Using the table for calculation purposes a contribution is requested in the total sum of £4664 towards Hart District Council leisure infrastructure.

Streetcare Officer (Internal): The waste and recycling collection point will be on Hook road (despite the intentions on the plan) unless the collection crew already drive past the intended collection points to get to the recently developed properties.

44 Drainage (Internal): No comments received.

Environment Agency South East: The proposed development is a part redevelopment and change of use involving the conversion of a commercial building into four residential dwellings. No increase in built footprint has been proposed. The applicant is proposing demolition of one part of the building which will actually result in a reduction in footprint. The footprint of the building is located within Flood Zone 1 which is defined as an area with a low probability of flooding by the Technical Guidance to the National planning Policy Framework (NPPF). No development is proposed within Flood Zone 3 (high probability of flooding) other than the replacement of existing hard standing. The applicant has proposed replacement of the existing hard standing to create car parking within Flood Zone 3. This will include permeable paving and the utilisation of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) for the disposal of surface water. The proposed development will only meet the requirements of the NPPF if the mitigation measures as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment are secured via condition.

Natural England: This application is in close proximity to Warnborough Green Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Basingstoke Canal SSSI. However, given the nature and scale of this proposal, Natural England is satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse effect on these sites as a result of the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application as submitted. We therefore advise your authority that these SSSIs do not represent a constraint in determining this application. All machinery and materials associated with the construction phase of the proposed redevelopment must be stored entirely within the site boundary as indicated on the site plan, as submitted with the application documents. Appropriate storage and preventative pollution measures, such as those outlined in the Environment Agency's Pollution Prevention Guidelines PPG6, are to be undertaken to ensure that no pollution or spillage arising from construction on site will impact the adjacent SSSIs. These conditions are required to ensure that the development, as submitted, will not impact upon the features of special interest for which Warnborough Green SSSI and Basingstoke Canal SSSI are notified.

Hampshire County Council Archaeologist: It appears there will be no or minimal groundworks associated with this development. Therefore there would be no archaeological issues I would wish to raise in this instance.

Thames Water Property Services: Original comments: With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. With regard to sewerage infrastructure we would not have any objection to the above planning application. Legal changes under The Water Industry (Scheme for the Adoption of private sewers) Regulations 2011 mean that the sections of pipes you share with your neighbours, or are situated outside of your property boundary which connect to a public sewer are likely to have transferred to Thames Water's ownership. Should your proposed building work fall within 3 metres of these pipes we recommend you contact Thames Water to discuss their status in more detail and to determine if a building over / near to agreement is required. More detailed comments were sought from Thames Water given the objection letters received regarding access to the pumping station and sewerage flooding. The following comments were received: 'It is understood that Hart District Council has requested clarification as to the capacity of the existing sewerage network to accommodate the proposed development in the light of recent incidences of sewer flooding. Thames Water is aware of the flooding experienced in the local area and we sympathise deeply with those suffering from flooding, our teams have been working constantly to deal with flooding reports. Unfortunately the extreme rainfall throughout December and January overwhelmed the sewer system. The

45 majority of flooding has been caused by flood / surface water entering the sewers which are designed only to carry waste water, rather than by a lack of capacity in the system to accommodate waste water flows. Thames Water has identified that the existing sewer network has capacity to accommodate the additional waste water flows from the proposed development. The proposed development wouldn't change the current level of service in the surrounding area and Thames Water therefore has no objection to the planning application on sewer flooding grounds. The application site is located in proximity to Thames Water's North Warnborough Sewage Pumping Station (SPS), which performs an important function in enabling waste water flows to be pumped to the Sewage Treatment Works. Thames Water has experienced difficulties with the existing access to North Warnborough SPS, which is located between two residential properties to the north of the application site (The Barn House and Farm Strete). This access is inadequate to accommodate larger vehicles, which are beneficial in connection with the maintenance of plant and machinery for example, or to enable tankers to transport excess flows from the SPS in emergency situations. Thames Water has in the past been able to arrange alternative access for such vehicles via the car park of the Chilli Pad Pub and it is understood that this option is not currently available. Thames Water is looking at best alternative access arrangements to the North Warnborough SPS.'

NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS Twenty letters of objection from twelve objectors (including the Odiham Society) have been received on the original/ amended plans raising the following main points: *Access to pumping station. *Recent incidents of sewerage flooding. *Loss of privacy and overlooking of 1 Castlebridge Cottages and The Barn House. *Harm to trees at The Barn House. *Impact on culvert to rear of the site which often overtops in heavy rainfall. Culvert should be maintained by new owners. *Loss of employment/ hospitability venue. *Marketing information is weak; not been demonstrated that it is not viable. *Site has been split which decreases value of The Chilli Pad. *Amended layout restricts access to garages and parking at 1 and 7 Castlebridge Cottages and restricts access rights. *Not enough space for Thames Water vehicles to access site. *The same condition to replace the drainage under the Chilli Pad car park that was placed on consent 12/00787/FUL should apply to this development. *Castlebridge Cottages use the Chill Pad for parking.

POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES The site has been identified as having significant archaeological interest. The Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record (AHBR), maintained by Hampshire County Council, is an index to the known archaeology sites and finds, historic buildings, designed and historic landscapes, parks and gardens and industrial monuments of Hampshire. It also holds records on archaeological fieldwork and excavations. Article 4 Directions are issued by the Council in exceptional circumstances where specific control over development is required, primarily where the character of an area of acknowledged importance would be threatened. The presence of an Article 4 Direction does not preclude development but simply requires planning permission to be secured from the Council before any specified works take place. Conservation Areas are designated by the District Council. New development is allowed within Conservation Areas but in considering whether to grant planning permission for new development or to allow demolition within a conservation area, special attention must be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area (Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990). Flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas of highest risk. In Flood Zone 2 (low to

46 medium risk) development is acceptable in principle but flood risk assessments appropriate to the scale and nature of the development and the risk should be provided. Flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas of highest risk. Within Zone 3 (high risk) new development should be strictly controlled. The development lies within 500m of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). SSSI's are designated by Natural England and are the country's very best wildlife and geological sites. They are legally protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006 GEN1 - General policy for development GEN2 - General Policy for change of use GEN4 - General Design Policy GEN11 - Areas affected by flooding-poor drainage RUR1 - Definition of areas covered RUR16 - Loss of employment uses RUR20 - Housing in rural settlements CON5 - Nature conservation Species Protected CON8 - Trees, Woods & Hedgerows Amenity Value CON10 - Basingstoke Canal General Policy CON13 - Conservation Areas General Policy T14 - Transport and Development T16 - Improvements Made Necessary by Dev

CONSIDERATIONS 1.Principle of development

The application site lies within the North Warnborough settlement boundary. Saved policy RUR20 of the Local Plan is the key policy against which this application should be assessed. This policy states that the density, scale and design should not be harmful to the character of the surrounding properties, there should be no loss of important open land or natural features, and that the proposal should provide a reasonable mix of dwelling types and sizes. As such the principle of development is acceptable subject to meeting the relevant criteria and any other relevant Development Plan Polices or other material considerations are taken into account.

2. Accessibility

The site lies within the North Warnborough settlement boundary. The site is approximately 250 from a small shop attached to the petrol station. The nearest schools and doctors surgery are in Odiham which are approximately 0.5 miles away. There are buses which provide services to Basingstoke, Hook, Odiham, Fleet, Farnborough and Frimley Park Hospital, Yateley and Camberley; there are a number of bus stops within the village including one directly in front of the application site. The proposal is considered to contribute to sustainable development in so far as it contributes to the District's housing supply in a sustainable location. In respect of the environmental aspect of sustainability it is considered that the proposal protects the natural, built and historic environment; this will be discussed in detail in latter sections of this report.

3. Loss of existing restaurant/ public house

Saved policy RUR16 states that proposals for change of use which would result in a loss of employment uses will not normally be permitted. The supporting text states that it is important to protect employment. It further mentions that the council accepts that there may be circumstances where the replacement of an unneighbourly use or the longer-term benefit of the local economy may justify an exception to this policy. 47 Saved policy RUR35 relates to social infrastructure and services in rural area and mentions that states community based services should be retained provided that the location is well related to the catchment area served.

The Parish of Odiham Village Design Statement mentions that the use of pubs and community buildings should be encouraged through appropriate planning controls to restrict any change of use.

Paragraph 28 of the NPPF states that planning should promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages including public houses.

Whilst there is a presumption in favour of retaining public houses this must be considered on a case by case basis. The applicant was asked to submit further information in relation to the marketing of the site as a restaurant/ pub. This information shows that it has been marketed for a year with no success; only one offer from a public house operator was received but this was dependent on debt funding and the offer was not acceptable to the administrators. Ten offers from bidders were seeking an alternative use in comparison to the single offer from a food/drink operator; this demonstrates the significant lack of interest from the food/drink industry in taking on the building as a going concern. The marketing information also states that potential operators were put off by the competition and impact of the Mill House on operating profits. Given this marketing evidence, the fact that North Warnborough is served by two other public houses, and the identified housing need within the district it is considered that a change of use would be acceptable in this instance.

Design and impact on the character of the North Warnborough Conservation Area and adjacent Listed Buildings

Saved policy RUR20 states that within the settlement boundaries of the rural settlements, small scale housing development would be permitted, provided that: (i) The density, scale and design are not harmful to the character of the surrounding properties; (ii) The development does not result in the loss of an important area of open land, or gap in a frontage, which contributes to the character and setting of the settlement; (iii) The proposal does not result in the loss of any natural feature considered worthy of retention; (iv) The proposal provides a reasonable mix of dwelling types and sizes where appropriate, reflecting the current needs of the area. Saved policies GEN1 and GEN4 permit development where, amongst other requirements, the design, scale, materials, massing, height, and prominence of the proposal is in character with the local area.

Saved policy GEN2 states that changes in the use of buildings will be permitted provided that the building is capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction. Saved policy CON13 relates to conservation areas and states that proposals which do not conserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area will not be permitted. Saved policy CON10 states that development which would adversely affect the landscape, architectural or ecological character, setting or enjoyment of the Basingstoke Canal or which would result in the loss of important views in the vicinity of the canal will not be permitted. Section 12 of the NPPF: 'Conserving and enhancing the historic environment' paragraph 131 states that in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and that new development should make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. The North Warnborough Conservation Area Appraisal mentions that 'The Jolly Miller Public House is a particularly important due to its position, set back from the road, and it is an important focal point in the village.' The application property has been identified as a positive building of townscape merit as it makes a positive contribution to the special interest of the Conservation Area. As with listed buildings there is a general presumption in favour of their retention. The application site is located in character area 3 of Conservation Area Appraisal which covers Hook Road and Bridge Road. It mentions that there are a variety of building types and plot sizes with a number of former 48 and existing public houses. It also mentions the adjacent Castlebridge Cottages as an important group of listed buildings.

Section 9 of the Conservation Area Appraisal relates to the control of infill development. It states that 'changes of use such as the subdivision of a large house into smaller units should be controlled to ensure that an increase in the density of development on the site does not harm the Conservation Area. Additional driveways or parking areas, walls or fences for example would affect the streetscape of the village.'

The building is of permanent and substantial construction and capable of conversion without any major works so would comply with saved policy GEN2. As mentioned in the Conservation Area Appraisal there are a variety of building types and plot sizes, therefore the subdivision of this large building into four dwellings is considered acceptable.

The parts of the building which would be demolished are modern additions, as such this removal is considered acceptable. The front porch extension and rear lean-to extension are small in size and acceptable in design. There would also be a number of changes to the window/ door layout, the most significant being new doors on the front elevation for access to the new dwellings. It is considered that these changes are acceptable and would retain the overall character of this 'positive building'. Odiham Parish Council questions the appropriateness of the use of glass bricks to the rear of the building given the Conservation Area setting. Given that these would only cover a small area and would be on the rear elevation it is considered that it would be acceptable in this instance.

Given that the extensions and alteration are considered acceptable in design, there would be no harm to the setting of the adjacent listed buildings or the views from the adjacent Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area. The area to the front, side and rear of the building are already used for parking therefore it is considered that the proposed car parking spaces would not be harmful to the character of the area. Further details of hardstanding, landscaping and boundary treatments can be secured via condition. Each habitable room would have an opening window and sufficient provision of natural light. Each dwelling would have a private rear garden. Therefore it is considered that the development would provide adequate living conditions for the future occupiers.

Given the limited size of the rear gardens, and the special character of the building it is considered necessary to remove permitted development rights for extensions and outbuildings. Part iv of saved policy RUR20 states that proposals should provide a reasonable mix of dwelling types and sizes where appropriate, reflecting the current needs of the area. The proposal provides a mix of two and three bedroom units therefore helps to meet the need for smaller family housing in the area. Overall it is considered that the development would be acceptable in design and appearance and would not result in unacceptable harm to the character of the adjacent Conservation Area and adjacent listed buildings.

4. Impact on neighbour amenity

Saved policy GEN1 permits development where there is no material loss of amenity to existing and adjoining residential uses. The proposal reduces the built form adjacent to Jolly Miller Cottage and The Barn House. Concern has been raised regarding the loss of the built form which forms the common boundary; the applicant has submitted an amended site plan which shows that a 2 metre high brick wall would be retained to form a boundary with The Barn House; this can be secured via condition. There is an existing window which faces towards Jolly Miller Cottage which serves a bathroom; the proposal is for this to serve a bedroom. Given that this is a secondary window to the bedroom it is recommended that the window is fitted with obscure glass to protect privacy. Concern has been raised regarding potential damage to trees at The Barn House when the rear section of the building is demolished. The Council's Tree Officer has not raised any concerns in this respect as these conifer trees do not have significant amenity or landscape value. Therefore this issue is a civil matter between the

49 applicant and the adjacent neighbour. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that it demolition is carried out carefully that there would be no harm to these trees.

The proposal reduces the built form adjacent to Castlebridge Cottages. There would be three windows which would face towards Castlebridge Cottage. One window would be a bathroom window therefore a condition can ensure that it is fitted with obscure glass. The other two windows are narrow windows which are the sole windows that serve bedroom 3 in plot 4; these windows are approximately in line with the rear boundary of the gardens of Castlebridge Cottages and at a separation distance of approximately 10 metres, therefore it is considered that they would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy.

The proposed access, parking and turning area are located close to the adjacent neighbouring properties. However as the proposal results in less vehicular trips that the existing use it is considered that there would be no unacceptable harm in this respect.

There are a number of windows where it is appropriate to secure obscure glazing via condition to ensure that there is no loss of privacy between the four proposed dwellings (see condition 16). Whilst they have not been built it is considered that the proposed development would not result in any unacceptable harm to the future occupiers of the dwellings granted under application reference 12/00787/FUL, should they be built. Concern was raised by 1 Castlebridge Cottages regarding rights of access over some of the proposed parking spaces shown on the original plan; the applicant submitted amended plans to address this. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not result in a material loss of amenity to the occupiers of any of the neighbouring properties.

5. Parking and highways issues

Saved policy GEN1 (vii) permits development which has adequate arrangements on site for access, servicing or the parking of vehicles. Saved policy T14 states that development must have adequate provision for highway safety, access and internal layout and parking. The proposed development will utilise the two existing vehicular accesses to serve the dwellings; this is considered acceptable. Swept path analysis drawings have been provided to show that there is adequate turning on site for cars. Concern was raised that the proposal would mean that access was restricted to and from the garages and parking areas at 1 and 7 Castlebridge Cottages; the applicant has provided a swept path analysis drawing to show that access to these would not be restricted. Concern has also been raised that the new parking spaces go over land which owners of Castlebridge Cottages have rights of access over; this is a civil matter. Cycle storage will be provided in rear garden sheds; further elevational details can be secured via condition. Hart District Council's Parking Provision Guidance (adopted in 2008) provides parking provision standards based on three 'zones of accessibility' within the District, Zone 1 being the most accessible areas and Zone 3 being the least accessible areas. The application property lies within Zone 3, which states that 11 parking spaces and 2 visitor parking spaces should be provided; 10 parking spaces have been provided therefore 3 below the recommended guidance. However the site is located in an accessible location within walking distance of a shop and next to a local bus stop (as set out in detail in section 2 of this report) therefore it is considered that that the parking provision would be acceptable in this instance. A recently allowed appeal for a residential scheme in the centre of Fleet is relevant (ref: 13/01736/FUL). This scheme was refused as it provided less on site parking than is advised in the parking guidance. The Inspector considered that the sustainable location meant that not all future occupants for a development of this type would need or be likely to require car use which would mean additional car parking spaces would not be required. Furthermore the Inspector mentioned that highway safety issues had not been identified regarding the under provision of car parking spaces therefore a reason for refusal was not warranted.

Whilst it is noted that the location is not as sustainable as the centre of Fleet, it is comparable as it is considered that there would not be any identified highway safety risk; i.e. cars are very unlikely to park on 50 Hook Road as it is a busy road with little opportunity for on street parking. This is in line with the NPPF Paragraph 32 which states that 'development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe'. Odiham Parish Council have raised concern regarding the impact of these proposals on approved application 12/00787/FUL, since it relied on parking spaces in the car park of the Chilli Pad. The applicant has submitted an amended plan to show that only one parking space permitted as part of the 12/00787/FUL scheme overlaps with the application site and that this can be accommodated. This can be done as the bin collection area was removed on the amended plans for this current application. Given the Council's Streetcare Officer stated that the waste and recycling collection point will be on Hook Road, a bin collection point is not needed. Concern has been raised that the The Chilli Pad is currently used for parking for Castlebridges Cottages; however this is an informal arrangement and therefore cannot be taken into account in the consideration of this application. Therefore it is considered that the proposed access and parking facilities are considered acceptable in compliance with saved policies GEN1 and T14.

6. Impact on trees

Saved policy CON8 states that where development is proposed which would affect trees, woodlands or hedgerows of significant landscape or amenity value planning permission will only be granted if these features are shown to be capable of being retained in the longer term. Trees in the immediate vicinity are protected by virtue of their siting within the Conservation Area. There is a Willow tree to the rear of the site and some conifers on the adjoining site The Barn House. The Council's Tree Officer has been consulted and has raised no objections to the proposal.

7. Impact on protected species

Saved policy CON5 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have a significant adverse effect on plant or animal species or their habitats protected by law unless conditions are attached or planning obligations entered into requiring the developer to secure their protection. There are no records of protected species which refer to the site itself and the proposals would not directly affect any designated sites of nature conservation value. The ecological survey found evidence of nesting birds on the site (house martin and jackdaw); the Council's Ecologist has recommended a condition to ensure that there is no harm to these birds. The ecological survey found no evidence of bats or any other protected species.

8. Flood risk and drainage

Saved policy GEN11 states that development in areas liable to flood, or which would unacceptably increase the risk of flooding on other land, will not be permitted, unless appropriate and satisfactory alleviation or mitigation measures are included.

The building lies within flood zone 1; the top east and west corners of the site lie within flood zones 2 and 3. No increase in built footprint has been proposed. The applicant is proposing demolition of one part of the building which would result in a reduction in footprint. Currently the entire site is impermeable, draining to the surface water sewer at the front of the property.

The applicant has submitted a detailed flood risk assessment. This states that SuDS features would be used in the form of permeable paving, and shallow infiltration systems in the car parking areas at the front of the site. An overflow pipe would be set to discharge excess flow to the surface water sewer at the front of the site, as per the current arrangement. This permeable system would capture volumes from the corresponding roof areas and the car parking areas themselves. The remaining hard-standing areas, which are made up of the access roads and paths would be drained via the same outfall pipe which serves the permeable systems and drain to the surface water sewer.

51 The flood risk assessment also states that the proposals would make use of the existing connections to the foul water sewer which is located in the highway at the front of the property. The proposed development of four residential properties would produce a design flow of 0.184 l/s at 6DWF to the existing foul sewer; this would not materially increase flows discharging to the existing public sewer. Whilst draining to the surface water sewer is not ideal, in this instance given that this already occurs and SuDS have been incorporated within the design, which results in proposed discharge rates and volumes being reduced in comparison to the existing quantities, it is acceptable in this instance. Furthermore as the culverted watercourse to the rear of the property is considered a flood risk during extreme events, it would not be sensible to drain to this.

The Environment Agency have been consulted and have no objections to the proposed development. Concern has been raised regarding poor access to the pumping station to the rear of the site which is currently accessed between The Barn House and Strete Farm. Written confirmation from the owner of the application site and owner of the land to the east of the site has been received which states that Thames Water can have access through to the pumping station. A swept path analysis drawing has been submitted to show that access for maintenance vehicles is possible through the site to the pumping station.

The Council requested bespoke comments from Thames Water regarding the capacity of the existing sewerage network to accommodate the proposed development in the light of recent incidences of sewerage flooding.

Thames Water have identified that the existing sewer network has capacity to accommodate the additional waste water flows from the proposed development. The extreme rainfall throughout December and January this year overwhelmed the sewer system and is the reason for recent flooding incidents. The majority of flooding has been caused by flood / surface water entering the sewers which are designed only to carry waste water, rather than by a lack of capacity in the system to accommodate waste water flows. There is a culvert that runs adjacent to the rear of the application site, concern has been raised that this is not properly maintained and has caused flooding. Similar to the Inspectors findings in a recent appeal at Hollytrees in Fleet 13/01012/FUL, the maintenance of this culvert is the owners responsibility and cannot form a basis for resisting the proposed development. In addition the Environment Agency have powers to enforce against landowners who fail to clear watercourses and therefore cause a serious risk of flooding. It should be noted that on the recently granted application at Castlebridge Cottages 12/00787/FUL there was a condition asking for replacement drainage works under the car park at the Chilli Pad prior to commencement. It is considered that a similar condition would not be necessary in this case given the reduction in footprint of the building and incorporation of SuDS resulting in reduced discharge rates.

9. Community Infrastructure and Mitigation

Please refer to Annex A to this report for the policy justification for contributions towards Community Infrastructure and the SPA. SPA: The site is located further than 5km from the nearest component of the SPA therefore there would be no unacceptable impact. Transport: The Highways Officer considers that this application will not increase the number of multi-modal trips for the proposed development therefore no transport contribution should be sought. Leisure: At a District level the site lies in an area where visitor data indicates that future occupants would be likely to visit the Basingstoke Canal, Colt Hill Wharf Clubhouse at Odiham, Odiham Common and Hitches Lane Country Park. There are projects relating to each of these places. As such a contribution of £4,664 should be sought to mitigate the effects of the development on strategic leisure provision. Within Odiham Parish there are identified leisure projects which will mitigate the impact of the future occupiers of the development on existing leisure facilities for example provision of allotments and 52 enhancements to play areas at North Warnborough Recreation Ground. Consequently a contribution of £9,343 would be appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the development. Education: The site lies within the catchment for the Robert Mays secondary school. Due to the current shortage of school places in this catchment it is appropriate to seek a contribution of £22,139 towards secondary education facilities. Conclusion: Providing that a legal agreement is completed to secure the financial contributions as detailed above there would be sufficient mitigation for the proposal's impact on community infrastructure.

CONCLUSION The site is located within the rural settlement boundary of North Warnborough wherein there is a general presumption in favour of development. The site lies within an accessible area in compliance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the NPPF. It is considered that the loss of employment/ hospitality venue would be acceptable in this instance. It is considered that the proposed development would be acceptable in design and would not result in harm to the character of the North Warnborough Conservation Area or the adjacent listed buildings and Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area. It is considered that there would be no unacceptable impact on neighbour amenity, protected species, trees or local flood risk. There would be sufficient on site parking and turning facilities. Provided that a legal agreement is completed to secure financial contributions as mitigation for the impact on community infrastructure the proposed development would comply with the relevant saved policies of the Hart District Local Plan and with the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION - Approve with Pre Conditions A. The Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to GRANT PERMISSION subject to the completion of a Planning Obligation to secure Financial contributions towards Community Infrastructure projects: a) District Leisure b) Parish Leisure c) Secondary Education 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2 No development shall take place until details and samples of all external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This should include details of the elevation materials, roof tiles and rainwater goods. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with approved details. Reason: To ensure that the external appearance is satisfactory and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

3 No development shall take place until large scale drawings of all the new windows and doors, including materials, method(s) of opening, finishes, and window reveal details, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details, and shall be retained as such. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan.

4 No works shall commence on site until an elevation drawing to show the retained boundary wall on the common boundary with The Barn House has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details, and shall be retained as such.

53 Reason: To ensure a suitable boundary treatment between the application site and The Barn House.

5 No development shall take place until full details of the provision of cycle storage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle storage facilities shall be available prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved and thereafter be retained for these purposes. Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate cycle storage and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan.

6 No works shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development iv. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate v. wheel washing facilities vi. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction vii. a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition & construction works

Reason: To protect the amenities of the area and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

7 No works shall commence on site until appropriate storage and preventative pollution measures (such as those outlined in the Environment Agency's Pollution Prevention Guidelines PPG6) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details, and shall be retained as such. All machinery and materials associated with the construction phase of the proposed redevelopment must be stored entirely within the site boundary. Reason: To ensure that no pollution or spillage arising from construction on site will impact the adjacent SSSIs.

8 No works shall commence on the rear gardens of the dwellings hereby approved until details of any imported subsoil or topsoil material have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details, and shall be retained as such. Reason: To ensure that the suitability of the soil for the new gardens.

9 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Hard details shall include, as appropriate, hard surfacing materials, boundary treatments, details of any new lighting, bin storage/collection areas. Soft landscape details shall include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant establishment), schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes and proposed densities where appropriate. Details shall further include a proposed timetable for planting and laying out of hard surfaces and roads. Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscaping and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

54 Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years after approved completion, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of similar species, size and number as originally approved, unless the Council gives its written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscaping and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

11 No development or demolition work or delivery of materials shall take place at the site except between 07:30 hours to 18:00 hours weekdays or 08:00 to 13:00 hours Saturdays. No development or demolition work or deliveries of materials shall take place on Sundays or Public Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby residential occupiers and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

12 The approved parking/ turning facilities for vehicles shall be available prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved and thereafter be retained for these purposes and access shall be maintained at all times to allow them to be used as such. Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate parking to prevent the likelihood of on- street car parking and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan.

13 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (reference 4563/FRA) dated January 2014 and received on 14.02.14, and the following mitigation measures detailed within the assessment: 1. Reduction in surface water run-off 2. Utilisation of SuDS including permeable paving. The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation of the dwellings unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants and to comply with saved policy GEN 11 of the Hart District Local Plan.

14 All works shall be conducted outside of the bird breeding season (March to August inclusive). If this is not possible the site shall be checked by an experienced ecologist immediately prior to any clearance works. If active nests are discovered they must left undisturbed until the young have fledged. Reason: To prevent harm to wild birds and their nests.

15 Notwithstanding the details provided the following first floor windows shall be glazed with obscure glass, and shall be non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The windows shall be retained as such. *Plot 2- bedroom 3- window on north side elevation *Plot 2- bathroom- window on east rear elevation *Plot 3- bathroom- window on south side elevation *Plot 4- ensuite- window on north side elevation Reason: To prevent overlooking of adjoining properties and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

16 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order with or without modification) no additional first floor windows or openings shall be constructed in the north or south side elevations of the dwellings hereby permitted. Reason: In the interest of the privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining properties, the character of the local area, and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

55 17 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order with or without modification) no enlargement of the dwelling house, as permitted by Class A or E of Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the Order, shall be constructed. Reason: To ensure the retention of a satisfactory appearance to the development, to avoid overdevelopment of the site, and to satisfy saved Policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

INFORMATIVES

2 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance the applicant sought pre-application advice before the submission of this planning application. Amended plans were received during the processing of the application to address concerns raised. The applicant was advised of the issues relating to community infrastructure as part of the processing of the application and was assisted to complete a Section 106 Planning Obligation to address these concerns. Consequently the application was considered acceptable. All letters of objection from the local residents and Parish Council have been fully addressed within the report.

B. In the event that the requirements as set out in Recommendation A above are not progressed to the satisfaction of the Head of Regulatory Services by 14 May 2014, the application be refused for the following reasons 1 The proposed development would exacerbate the existing deficiency in provision for leisure facilities within the vicinity of the site. As such the proposal is contrary to paragraph 4.6.1 in the adopted Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006, Hart District Council's adopted Leisure Strategy, and the Council's Community Infrastructure Policy.

2 The proposed development would exacerbate the existing deficiency in provision for secondary schooling in the vicinity of the site. As such the proposal is contrary to paragraph 4.6.1 in the adopted Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006, and the Council's Community Infrastructure Policy.

INFORMATIVE

1 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance the applicant was advised of the issues relating to community infrastructure as part of the processing of the application and was asked to complete a Section 106 Planning Obligation to address these concerns and offered assistance in this. However, it was not completed within a reasonable period of time, of which the applicant was advised, and consequently planning permission was refused for the reasons set out above.

COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 103

APPLICATION NO. 14/00073/FUL LOCATION Land To West Of Church Lane Ewshot Farnham Surrey PROPOSAL New 2 bedroom bungalow on empty plot of land. APPLICANT Mr Terry Sparks CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 26 February 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY 7 March 2014 PLANNING COMMITTEE Cllr Tony Clarke WARD MEMBER RECOMMENDATION Refuse Permission

57 Site plan 14/00073/FUL

60 Proposed garage elevations

61 BACKGROUND This application is brought to Committee at the discretion of the Head of Regulatory Services.

SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is located within the rural settlement of Ewshot as identified on the proposals map of the Hart District Local Plan (as saved), with the site comprising 0.16 hectares of an open field on the western side of Church Lane. The site is elevated as viewed from the road with the land rising to the west and dropping to the north. A mature hedgerow runs along the front site boundary adjacent to the road frontage. The application site links with another field on the east side of Church Lane to emphasize the rural setting of the village and together they provide an gap between existing development north and south on Church Lane. A mixture of residential properties are found in the surrounding area with some small bungalows and two storey dwellings. These range in detail and design.

PROPOSAL This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a detached bungalow with a link attached garage and new access onto Church Lane. The proposed bungalow would have a total width of approximately 16 metres and a total depth of 14.3 metres, a maximum ridge height of 5 metres and a maximum eaves height of 2.3 metres. As the levels change across the site is quite significant the proposal would require engineering (“cut and fill”) of the levels in order to accommodate the dwelling. The proposed finished floor level would be approximately 1.4 metres lower than the land directly to the south and approximately 0.5 metres higher than the land to the north. The application would result in the creation of a new access onto Church Lane, the removal of the hedgerow to the front of the site and replacement of the hedge in a tapered formation. The hedge removal is required to ensure that adequate viability is provided at the access onto Church Lane. In support of the application the following points are specifically made by the applicant: * The land is within the settlement boundary. * The scheme is low impact and settles the uncertainty surrounding the ongoing use of the land with a single small low density dwelling. * The scheme complies with the policies on maintaining open space with free space around it and being of a two bedroom footprint. * Officers have been encouraging and supportive of the application up to today. * The design is for a low line, sustainable, modest oak framed single storey house which maintains views to the wider countryside. * Should an appeal officer view this proposal, he or she would do so in light of the previous multi house scheme. They would draw the conclusion that this scheme address the criticisms levelled at those previous schemes being small scale and maintaining the openness. * In the National Planning Policy Framework says “we must house a rising population, which is living longer…Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development, that is the basis for every plan, and every decision.”

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 03/00795/FUL - Erection of 6 No. two and three bed dwellings with associated parking and garaging. (plots 1 - 6) Refused – Appeal Dismissed. This appeal was considered in conjunction for a second application on the east side of Ewshot Lane (03/00796/FUL) for 7 dwellings. The Inspector concluded that neither site possessed containment and that the “largely open and undeveloped character would be lost and they would no longer function as gaps. … the comprise significant and attractive green wedges extending into the settlement and affording attractive views. The appeal sites strongly reflect the rural setting of the village and provide an important gap between existing development.” A copy of the appeal decision is given as Appendix A.

62 CONSULTEES RESPONSES Ewshot Parish Council OBJECTION Ewshot Parish Council (EPC) has no objection to the design, appearance or form of the proposed dwelling but has extreme concern at the proposed location. The Council has in mind the Inspector's decision to dismiss the appeal (APP/N1730/A/04/1146557) against Hart District Council's decision to refuse application 03/00795/FUL for development on this piece of land to the West of Church Lane in 2004. In this case the Inspector included in the reasons that ''the appeal site(s) strongly reflect the rural setting of the village and provide an important gap between existing development.' It was further stated that 'The proposals would result in the loss of an important and distinctive element in the character of the village and there would be substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area'. These reasons, with others, conflicted with Local Plan policy RUR20. EPC is of the view that the site has not altered in any way since 2004, nor have the circumstances and that as RUR20 is still extant, there is conflict which should result in the Planning Authority refusing this application. This decision was reached unanimously by the full council. Furthermore there is considerable local concern that allowing this application will result in further applications to develop the rest of this piece of land.

Highways (Internal) The applicant has exceeded the visibility required for Northbound traffic (the priority splay) and the Southbound splay is within reasonable compromise position. Further to my comments above regarding the 2m offset and the fact that the traffic will be approaching the access from the middle of the road as opposed to the 1m offset, leads to deem the visibility acceptable. The garage is sufficient size for accessibility and for cycle storage. There is a bin store at the back of the garage which is accessible and deemed adequate. The driveway has sufficient space for 3+ cars and adequate room to turn allowing them to enter and exit in a forward gear. Conservation/Listed Buildings Officer (Internal) No comments required Ecology Consult (Internal) The ecological report indicates that the site is of low intrinsic ecological value although the hedging has the potential to support some wider countryside nesting bird species. I have no objection to this application on the grounds of biodiversity subject to the following condition being applied: Condition 1. All wild birds and their nests are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Any vegetation clearance should be conducted outside of the bird breeding season (March to August inclusive). If this is not possible the site should be checked by an experienced ecologist immediately prior to any clearance works. Reason: to prevent harm to wild birds and their nests.

NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS Four letters of objection raising the following main issues: - 2003 application was refused and dismissed at appeal, this application would also be detrimental to the preservation of the open space and contrary to the objectives of RUR20. - This would set a precedent for further dwellings on this site and in the surrounding area of the village resulting in ''town cramming' (officer comment: any future application would need to be assessed on its individual merits) - Loss of privacy to neighbouring properties -Adverse impact on highway safety -Lack of appreciation of the World War II bunker (officer comment: this is outside of the site for development and the Heritage Statement confirms it is to remain unaltered) -Unsustainable to build a dwelling in this location 63 -Further extension and alteration to the building would be harmful POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES The site has been identified as having significant archaeological interest. The Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record (AHBR), maintained by Hampshire County Council, is an index to the known archaeology sites and finds, historic buildings, designed and historic landscapes, parks and gardens and industrial monuments of Hampshire. It also holds records on archaeological fieldwork and excavations. The development lies within 5km of the Thames Basins Heath Special Protection Area (SPA). This is an area that has been identified as being of international importance for the breeding, feeding, wintering or the migration of rare and vulnerable species of birds found within European Union countries. They are European designated sites, classified under the ‘Birds Directive 1979’ which provides enhanced protection given by the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) status all SPAs also hold. New residential development in particular must be strictly controlled within areas up to 5km from SPA's unless appropriate mitigation strategies have been put in place. A tree preservation order is an order (TPO) is made by the Council in respect of trees or woodlands. The principal effect of a TPO is to prohibit the cutting down, uprooting, topping, lopping, wilful damage, or wilful destruction of trees without the Council's permission. Protection also extends to preventing the cutting of any roots. Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006

GEN1 - General policy for development URB16 - Extensions RUR20 - Housing in rural settlements CON5 - Nature conservation Species Protected South East Plan 2006 – 2026

NRM6 - THAMES BASIN HEATHS SPECIAL PROTECTION A

CONSIDERATIONS MAIN ISSUES 1. Principle of development 2. Accessibility 3. The impact on character 4. Impact on neighbouring amenity 5. Impact on highway safety 6. Impact on ecology 7. Community Infrastructure and mitigation

1. Principle of development

This site is located within the Rural Settlement of Ewshot as identified on the proposals map of the Hart District Local Plan (as saved). Within the settlement areas the principle of residential development is considered acceptable subject compliance with the policies of the development plan documents. The emerging Local Plan was withdrawn last September which means that the Council does not have up to date planning housing policies. Part of the Local Plan Inspector’s criticism was that the Council had not identified its objectively assessed needs in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Consequently the presumption in paragraph 14 of the NPPF that planning permission should be granted unless: * any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or * specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

64 2. Accessibility

Ewshot has two public houses, the nearest of which is 50m from the site, a community/village hall, a children’s play area, both approximately 150m from the site and some limited employment facilities. However, it is some distance from other higher order facilities and only has an hourly bus service. The proposal is considered to be sustainable development in so far as it would contribute to the District’s housing supply in reasonably accessible location. The principle of development is therefore considered to be acceptable. 3. Impact on the character of the area

Saved Local Plan policy GEN1(i) permits development where the proposal is well designed, is in character with the local area and is sympathetic to the existing dwelling and surrounding properties. The site lies within the rural settlement of Ewshot and therefore Policy RUR20 (housing in rural settlements) is applicable to the consideration of any application. This policy is set out below for reference: Within the settlement boundaries of the rural settlements, small scale housing development will be permitted provided that: (i) The density, scale and design are not harmful to the character of the surrounding properties; (ii) The development does not result in the loss of an important area of open land, or gap in a frontage, which contributes to the character and setting of the settlement; (iii) The proposal does not result in the loss of any natural feature considered worthy of retention; (iv) The proposal provides a reasonable mix of dwelling types and sizes where appropriate, reflecting the current needs of the area. With regards to the design of the dwelling, a mixture of designs can be found in the street scene. It is considered that the proposed bungalow is of an appropriate design and appearance within this rural settlement. The planning history for this site shows that the planning permission was refused under application 03/00795/FUL, and subsequently dismissed at appeal, for the erection of 6 dwellings. The reason for refusal was the loss of the spacing or gap between the properties in this part of the street, which was considered to be an important feature. This application is for a bungalow with no accommodation in the roof space. The height bulk and massing of this current proposal is significantly less than that considered under application 03/00795/FUL. The proposal would, however, still result in loss of the largely open and undeveloped character of this area. The extent of the gap would be materially reduced and would no longer function as a gap to anything like the same extent. The significant and attractive green wedge extending into the settlement and affording attractive views would be lost. The proposed dwelling would appear elevated within the plot as viewed from the street scene and the land to the north. This has been reduced to a degree by cutting into the land to the south. In order to provide a visibility sight line the front boundary hedge would need to be removed, and a section at the front would be lowered to road level. The applicant has shown that the hedge would be replaced by a native hedge in a tapered formation. Subject to a detailed landscaping scheme being agreed prior to the commencement of development this element could be accommodated without detriment to the street scene. Although the density, scale and design are not harmful to the character of the surrounding properties, and the proposal does not result in the loss of any natural feature considered worthy of retention, the proposal does result in the loss of an important area of open land, or gap in a frontage, which contributes to the character and setting of the settlement, and is thus contrary to saved local plan policy RUR20(iii). Paragraph 17 of the NPPF indicates that decision making should, recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and in paragraph 55, in discussing housing in rural areas, that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. 4. Impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties

Saved policy GEN1(iii) permits development where there would be no material loss of amenity to adjoining residential uses. The NPPF advises that planning should seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings (para 17). Roughgrove Cottage and Mead House are located on the opposite side of Church Lane. Whilst the application site would be elevated when compared to these properties the distance of separation would be sufficient to 65 ensure that there would not be a direct pattern of overlooking of the primary amenity areas that would be so harmful to warrant the refusal of planning permission. Merryview Cottage is to the south of the application site. This neighbouring property is on higher level land, with the proposed bungalow set off the shared boundary. The proposed dwelling would not result in an overbearing impact, loss of light or loss of privacy to the occupants of this property. Holmecroft Farm and the associated dwellinghouse are located to the south of the site and on significantly lower level land. The proposed dwelling would overlook this land, due to the change in levels. However, the distance of separation between the application site and primary amenity areas of this property would be such that the loss of privacy would not be harmful to the amenity of occupants.

It is considered that the proposed development would accord with the objectives of policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan (as saved) in terms of the impact on neighbouring residential amenities. 5. Parking and highway safety

Saved policy GEN1 (General Development Policy) seeks to ensure that development has adequate arrangements on site for access, servicing or the parking of vehicles and does not give rise to traffic flows in the surrounding area that would have a detrimental impact on nearby properties. The application includes realignment of the hedge along the Church Lane frontage to provide an appropriate visibility splay. The Council's Highways Engineer has reviewed the information supplied and confirmed that this is acceptable. However, it will be necessary for the applicant to apply to the County Highways Authority to ensure that the works to join the highway are undertaken in an appropriate manner. This could be included as an informative on any approval. The proposed development would not be harmful to parking or highway safety. The proposal would be in accordance with the objectives of Policy GEN1 of the Hart District with regards to parking and highway safety.

6. Impact on Ecology

Saved policy CON5 requires that development should not have an adverse effect on protected species or their habitats. An ecological survey was provided with the application. This has been reviewed by the Council's Ecologist who has confirmed that subject to a condition in relation to nesting birds the application is unlikely to have an adverse impact on protected species. The LPA has considered the possible impact of the development and can be reasonably certain that biodiversity would not be adversely affected. Therefore the proposal would comply with saved policy CON5 and advice in the NPPF.

7. Community Infrastructure and mitigation

Please refer to Annex A to this report for the policy justification for contributions towards Community Infrastructure. Transport: To mitigate the impacts of this development a contribution of £4,014.00 towards infrastructure improvements in the Hart Transport Statement adopted September 2012. This will ensure that the development mitigates its effect on the transport network and complies with the relevant policies of the Local Plan. The contribution sought by the Highways Authority towards transport schemes is based on the number of bedrooms and hence future occupiers and associated increase in multi-modal trips. Leisure: At a district level the site lies in an area where visitor data indicates that future occupants would be likely to visit Hitches Lane Country Park, Fleet Pond and the Basingstoke Canal. There are projects relating to each of these places. As such a contribution of £848.00 should be sought to mitigate the effects of the development on strategic leisure provision. Education:

66 Due to the current shortage of school places in this catchment it is appropriate to seek a contribution of £3,821.00 towards primary education and £4,025.00 towards secondary education. Conclusion on Infrastructure and SPA Impacts: The agreements in relation to the above have not been completed, therefore the proposed development would fail to mitigate its impact on local infrastructure. On this basis the development is contrary to paragraph 4.6.1 of the Hart District Local Plan (as saved).

CONCLUSION

The site lies within the settlement of Ewshot as defined in the adopted Local Plan where development is first to be directed. As regards the planning housing policies of the Council these are considered to be out of date which means that the presumption set out in the NPPF that planning permission should be granted unless there are significant material considerations against the proposal. Both of these are strong material considerations in favour of the grant of planning permission. The proposed development is of an appropriate design and would not adversely affect the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties and can be provided with an appropriate access. Ecological and surface water drainage issues can be dealt with satisfactorily and through the completion of a legal agreement the development can mitigate its impact on a European site and ensure adequate infrastructure is provided. These are, therefore, all neutral in determining the application. Set against this is the loss of an area of open space and gap within the settlement which saved local plan policy RUR20(iii) specifically seeks to protect. This is an important part of the rural character of Ewshot. This is considered also be a strong material consideration, this time against the proposal. Taken overall, it is considered that the long-term preservation of this gap should take precedence over the short-term hiatus in the housing position of the Council, given this is only for a single dwelling, and does not contribution significantly to the housing supply. Consequently planning permission should be refused as the harm outweighs the benefits.

RECOMMENDATION - Refuse Permission

REASONS FOR REFUSAL 1 The proposed development would result in the loss an area of open space which represents an important gap providing a green wedge extending into the settlement of Ewshot resulting in substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently the proposal would be contrary to saved policy RUR20 (iii) of the Hart District Local Plan.

INFORMATIVES

1 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance:o The applicant was provided with pre-application advice. o The applicant was advised of the issues relating to community infrastructure/impact on a European site as part of the processing of the application and was asked to complete a Section 106 Planning Obligation to address these concerns and offered assistance in this.

Appendix A: Appeal decision

COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 104

APPLICATION NO. 14/00632/HMC LOCATION Blounce House Blounce South Warnborough Hook RG29 1RX PROPOSAL 900mm & 1500mm timber trellis with 20 x 20mm metal support posts @3600 centres - to the top of existing west facing garden wall APPLICANT Mr Tom Bartlam CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 18 April 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY 12 May 2014 PLANNING COMMITTEE Cllr John Kennett WARD MEMBER RECOMMENDATION Refuse Permission

Site Plan

72 Proposed elevations

73 BACKGROUND

The application is presented to the Planning Committee at the request of Cllr Kennet who wishes the Committee 'to consider whether officers are being overly zealous and unreasonable in demanding that wooden posts be removed and replaced by metal ones, with all the cost and upset associated with that.'

A previous application, 14/02640/LBC, was refused for the following reason: 'The wooden posts and trellis due to their height, number, position and material are an incongruous, untraditional and alien feature which have an adverse impact on the setting and therefore the significance of the Grade 2* listed building. As such it fails to comply with saved policy CON17 and advice in the NPPF.'

The application is partially retrospective.

THE SITE

The property is a Grade 2* listed building now known as Blounce House, located in the countryside to the west of the Alton Road in the parish of South Warnborough. First listed in 1952 it is described as dating from 1699 with a 'symmetrical (east) front of 2 storeys and attic, 5 windows, Hipped tile roof, 3 small hipped dormers with casements, fully-moulded modillion cornice. Walling in red brickwork in Flemish bond, with rubbed flat arches, 1st floor band, moulded plinth; in the upper walling flush blue header bricks mark in large shapes the inscription 16 WB 99. Sashes in exposed frames. The doorway has a moulded pediment on bold curved brackets, above a solid door frame which encloses a 3-light plain fanlight, later double doors, above a flight of stone steps. The design is returned at each end, with lower wings projecting westwards expressed in less formal vernacular style.'

A granary building to the north of the house is also listed in its own right.

Approximately half the perimeter of the site is bounded by a high wall, which is listed as a curtilage structure.

The site is roughly rectangular comprising some 0.81 hectares with the house set back some 90m from the public highway. Access to the property is via a private drive along the southern boundary, which then splits with one branch curving around the rear of the site. This driveway also serves the neighbouring properties of Merrydown, Blounce Corner, Rose Cottage, Pepys Barn, Pepys Cottage and Little Blounce.

PROPOSAL

The application seeks planning permission to retain a trellis which has been added to the top of the rear boundary wall for a length of 30.7m. The trellis varies in height from 0.9m to 1.5m, giving a total height of 2.4 - 2.6m above ground level on the drive side and 3.2m - 3.8m on the garden side.

The trellis would be supported on 10 metal posts spaced equally apart and positioned into the ground on the drive side of the wall.

PLANNING HISTORY

HWR 45LB - Replace window with French doors. Approved 12.01.1971

HWR 3148 - Erection of stables. Approved 16.03.1977

HDC 217LB - Conversion of room into garage. Approved 23.03.1982

HDC 23452 - Erection of fencing for tennis court. Approved 26.04.1994

13/002639/HMC and 13/02640/LBC - Erection of trellis (partially retrospective). Refused 6.02.2014

74 CONSULTEE RESPONSES

South Warnborough Parish Council No objections to this application.

Highways (Internal) No highway objection

Conservation/Listed Buildings Officer (Internal) Pre-application advice and a site visit were carried out with the Enforcement Officer following a complaint regarding the insertion of timber posts and trellis to the rear Western boundary wall of Blounce House. The frequency and size of the posts were found to be unacceptable. The trellis rises up higher at the Southern end of the wall. It was considered that the posts were not acceptable for such a rural setting, the metal posts and reduced number are a more appropriate proposal.

The trellis has not been reduced to one level and still remains rising in height. The reduction in height would help make the appearance less urban. Additional planting along the boundary would also help in this aspect. The trellis does not enhance the boundary and a dark metal to match the posts would be more appropriate. The trellis could be painted black to merge. The overall scheme, as submitted is an improvement on that originally viewed on site, however other improvements could be made or conditioned.

NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS

One comment received raising the following issues: - Why has the Council accepted a duplicate application? - Other properties along the track have full rights of way - Negative impact on Blounce House - Highly visible from Rose Cottage - No change in circumstances since the previous refusal The previous comments were reiterated: - Inadequate and inaccurate Design and Access Statement - Inappropriate, intrusive and unnecessary - No overlooking given the distance and change in levels - Trees recently removed previously provided a screen - Urbanising and alien to the rural character - Blatant disregard for the planning process

POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES

Listed Buildings are designated by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works, special regard must be taken of the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses (Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 ).

Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006

RUR1 - Definition of areas covered

RUR24 - Renovation Extension Extg Dwellings

RUR2 - Devl. in open countryside General

T14 - Transport and Development

CON17 - Listed Buildings Extension-Alteration

CONSIDERATIONS

Principle

As the property lies outside any settlement boundary as defined by the Local Plan, development is only allowed if it is specifically provided for by other policies in the Local Plan and there is no significant harm to the character and setting of the countryside.

Impact on the countryside

Policy RUR24 deals with development to existing dwellings in the countryside and requires that there is no harm to the character of the countryside. Saved Policy RUR2 requires that development that is provided for under other policies should not have an adverse impact on the appearance of the countryside.

As the posts and trellis are along a private driveway they are not visible from any public domain. Even from the track (Right of Way) 250m to the north, it would be screened by the intervening trees and buildings. Therefore it is considered that there would be no apparent harm to the appearance of the countryside.

Neighbour amenity

Saved Policy GEN1(iii) permits development where there would be no material loss of amenity to adjoining residential uses. The NPPF advises that planning should seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings (para. 17).

The posts and trellis are some 25m from the front elevation of the neighbouring property to the rear, Rose Cottage and 13m from the side elevation of their converted garage. This is considered sufficient distance not to result in an material loss of amenity in terms of overbearing impact. Given the nature of the scheme, there would be no loss of amenity in terms of loss of light or privacy.

The scheme therefore complies with saved policy GEN1.

Highway safety

Saved policy T14 requires development not to have an adverse impact on highway safety.

The Council’s Highway Officer raised no concerns about the scheme in terms of highway safety and therefore the scheme would comply with saved Policy T14.

Impact on the heritage assets

Saved Policy CON17(ii) permits alterations and extensions of listed buildings provided the design is appropriate to the character and setting of the building.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the Authority to have special 76 regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) builds on this statutory requirement and advises that LPA's should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of the heritage asset (para 131), that great weight should be given to the conservation of a heritage asset and the more important the asset the greater the weight should be (para 131). Any harm or loss of significance should require clear and convincing justification (para.132). Significance can be harmed by development within its setting (para 132). Development that results in substantial loss or harm should be refused consent unless there are significant public benefits which outweigh the harm (para. 133).

The difference between this application and the previous refused scheme, is that 18 wooden posts would be replaced with 10 metal posts. The trellis itself remain the same and at the same heights.

Ten panels are 0.9m high above the wall and seven panels are 1.5m high. Most of the trellis has been erected, (on the wooden posts) with a further four, 1.5m panels yet to be added. There is a banked verge along the drive so the total height above the roadway is from 2.8m to over 3m high.

In the previous application the Council's Conservation Officer recommended refusal commenting 'the size and colour of the posts makes them intrusive and detrimentally visible' and the 'design and colour of the trellis is not enhancing the setting of the listed building' and provides a 'negative visual environment'. For this current application the Conservation Officer concedes that 'the metal posts and reduced number are more appropriate' but 'the trellis does not enhance the boundary'.

The boundary wall, as it pre-dates 1948, is considered to be a listed as a curtilage structure although the posts are free standing and do not appear to have harmed the fabric of the wall. High walls are a traditional boundary treatment around listed buildings, adding wooden trellis to the top of an historic wall however, is not. Although there is an openness to trellis, the overall height is uncommon, not only around listed buildings, but in any situation - boundary treatments over 2m high are generally acoustic barriers along trunk roads or around sites where high security is a necessity. Neither scenario applies in this instance.

Although the trellis is along a private drive, where it would only be seen by a limited number of people, it still forms part of the setting of the listed building and it is immaterial whether the building or any part of its curtilage or setting is in the public domain or not.

The length and height of the trellis results in a structure which is immediately obvious as unusual and appearing out of place.

Blounce House is listed as Grade 2* and considered to be a heritage asset of considerable importance. As such the NPPF recommends that considerable weight should be given to the desirability of sustaining and enhancing its setting. In this instance it is considered that although the metal posts would be less obtrusive than the existing wooden posts, this change does not overcome the previous reason for refusal.

It is considered that the posts and trellis are/would be an incongruous and uncharacteristic feature which fails to sustain or enhance the setting and the therefore the significance of the Grade 2* listed building and its curtilage structure(s).

No justification for the trellis and posts has been submitted with the application; but in any event the NPPF advises that identified harm to the significance of a heritage asset can only be outweighed if there is a clear public benefit and in this instance, there is none.

It is noted that it is proposed to plant hedging along the bank to 'soften' the view. However, the banked verge is narrow, gets little sunlight and would have to contend with vehicles passing close by. It is therefore improbably that hedging would flourish and grow to a height sufficient to cover the posts and the trellis adequately. However, landscaping should be used to enhance development, not to disguise development that is fundamentally unacceptable.

77 CONCLUSION

Although there would be no harm to the countryside, highway safety or neighbour amenity, the posts and trellis are an incongruous, untraditional and alien feature which have an adverse impact on the setting and therefore the significance of the Grade 2* listed building. As such it fails to overcome the previous reason for refusal and would be contrary to saved policy CON17 and advise in the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION - Refuse Permission

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1 The posts and trellis due to their height, position and material are an incongruous, untraditional and alien feature which fails to sustain or enhance the setting and therefore the significance of the Grade 2* listed building and its curtilage structures. As such it fails to comply with saved policy CON17 of the Hart District Local Plan, Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and advice in the NPPF.

INFORMATIVES

1 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance the applicant was advised of the issues relating to design and appearance during the processing of the application but declined to submit amended plans to address these concerns. Consequently the proposal is unacceptable for the reasons given above.

COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 105

APPLICATION NO. 14/00633/LBC LOCATION Blounce House Blounce South Warnborough Hook RG29 1RX PROPOSAL 900mm & 1500mm timber trellis with 20 x 20mm metal support posts @3600 centres - to the top of existing west facing garden wall APPLICANT Mr Tom Bartlam CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 18 April 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY 12 May 2014 PLANNING COMMITTEE Cllr John Kennett WARD MEMBER RECOMMENDATION Refuse Listed Building Consent

79 BACKGROUND

The application is partially retrospective.

THE SITE

A granary building to the north of the house is also listed in its own right.

Approximately half the perimeter of the site is bounded by a high wall, which is listed as a curtilage structure.

PROPOSAL

The application seeks listed building consent to retain a trellis which has been added to the top of the rear boundary wall for a length of 30.7m. The trellis varies in height from 0.9m to 1.5m, giving a total height of 2.4 - 2.6m above ground level on the drive side and 3.2m - 3.8m on the garden side.

The trellis would be supported on 10 metal posts spaced equally apart and positioned into the ground on the drive side of the wall.

PLANNING HISTORY

HWR 45LB - Replace window with French doors. Approved 12.01.1971

HWR 3148 - Erection of stables. Approved 16.03.1977

HDC 217LB - Conversion of room into garage. Approved 23.03.1982

HDC 23452 - Erection of fencing for tennis court. Approved 26.04.1994 13/002639/HMC and 13/02640/LBC - Erection of trellis (partially retrospective). Refused 6.02.2014

80 CONSULTEE RESPONSES

South Warnborough Parish Council No objections

NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS

POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES

Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006

CON17 - Listed Buildings Extension-Alteration

81 CONSIDERATIONS

As the application is for listed building consent, only the impact on the listed building and its setting can be considered.

Impact on the heritage assets

Saved Policy CON17(ii) permits alterations and extensions of listed buildings provided the design is appropriate to the character and setting of the building.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the Authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) builds on this statutory requirement and advises that LPA's should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of the heritage asset (para 131), that great weight should be given to the conservation of a heritage asset and the more important the asset the greater the weight should be (para 131). Any harm or loss of significance should require clear and convincing justification (para.132). Significance can be harmed by development within its setting (para 132). Development that results in substantial loss or harm should be refused consent unless there are significant public benefits which outweigh the harm (para. 133).

The difference between this application and the previous refused scheme, is that 18 wooden posts would be replaced with 10 metal posts. The trellis itself remain the same and at the same heights.

The length and height of the trellis results in a structure which is immediately obvious as unusual and appearing out of place.

82 No justification for the trellis and posts has been submitted with the application; but in any event the NPPF advises that identified harm to the significance of a heritage asset can only be outweighed if there is a clear public benefit and in this instance, there is none.

CONCLUSION

The posts and trellis are an incongruous, untraditional and alien feature which have an adverse impact on the setting and therefore the significance of the Grade 2* listed building. As such it fails to overcome the previous reason for refusal and would be contrary to saved policy CON17 and advise in the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION - Refuse Listed Building Consent

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

INFORMATIVES

1 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance the applicant was advised of the issues relating to design and appearance during the processing of the application but declined to submit amended plans to address these concerns. Consequently the proposal is unacceptable for the reasons given above.

COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 106

APPLICATION NO. 14/00547/HMC LOCATION 49 Ferndale Road Church Crookham Fleet Hampshire GU52 6LN PROPOSAL Extensions to existing garage and conversion to habitable accommodation. APPLICANT Mr Alan Ennis CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 11 April 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY 1 May 2014 PLANNING COMMITTEE Cllr Simon Ambler WARD MEMBER RECOMMENDATION Grant Permission

Site plan

85 86 87 BACKGROUND

The application has been brought to Committee as the Corporate Director and Monitoring Officer is a neighbour of the application site.

Amended plans (Ref: AE/01B) (24/02/2014) were submitted in March which revises the internal layout and front elevation.

SITE

The application site is a modern, semi-detached house in Ferndale Road, Fleet. The house has a design typical of two-storey houses in the Ferndale Road street scene, comprising white painted render and hanging tiles with a common building line. To the front of the house is hard-surface off road parking for approximately two cars. To the side of the house is a hard surface drive which provides spaces for approximately three further cars. There is no boundary between this drive and that of the adjacent dwelling. To the rear is a flat roofed garage with a room used as a study/office to the rear of this. To the rear of the house is a large garden of approximately 35 metres. At the rear of the garden is a single storey wooden outbuilding.

PROPOSAL

The proposal is for the conversion and extension of an existing single storey garage and attached study outbuilding to residential accommodation.

The proposal would provide the following accommodation:-

 Utility room (2.8m length x 1.4m width)  Bedroom and en-suite bathroom (5.0m length x 3.0m width)  Study (1.8m length x 3.0m width)

CONSULTEES RESPONSES

Church Crookham Parish Council

No objection. The Parish Council would like the planning officer to ensure that the extension is ancillary to the adjacent dwelling.

NEIGHBOUR RESPONSES

No observations received

POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES

Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006

GEN1 - General policy for development

GEN4 - General Design Policy

URB16 - Extensions

88 URB1 - Definition of Areas

URB17 - Annexes for Dependent Relatives

CONSIDERATIONS

 Principle of Development  Design  Impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings  Parking

Principle of Development

The application site is within the settlement boundary of Fleet, as defined in the Hart Adopted Local Plan, where development of this type is considered to be acceptable in principle subject to complying with any relevant policies.

The proposal would therefore comply with saved policy URB1 of the Hart Local Plan.

Design

Saved policies GEN1, GEN4, URB16 and URB17 permit development where, amongst other requirements, the design, scale, massing, height and prominence of the proposal is in character with the local area and is sympathetic to the existing dwelling and surrounding properties. Hart also sets out design guidance and advice for residential extensions in 'Extending Your Home: A Householder Guide'.

Essentially, the proposed extension is appropriately scaled for the existing dwelling. The massing and height of the proposed extension are considered acceptable. The proposed replacement of the existing garage door with an entrance door and small window on the front elevation would have no significant impact on the Ferndale Road street scene.

As such it is considered that the proposal is subservient to the existing dwelling in line with guidance set out in 'Extending Your Home'. The proposed materials are to match those of the existing dwelling and are therefore considered acceptable.

Church Crookham Parish Council has requested that a suitable condition be placed on the proposal to ensure that the accommodation is ancillary to the main dwelling.

It is considered that this would be appropriate given the need to avoid its possible use as a separate unit of living accommodation and to comply with saved policy URB17 which requires annexe extensions to be connected to the main dwelling.

It is therefore considered that the overall design and appearance, subject to matching materials, of the proposal would be acceptable.

The proposal would therefore comply with saved policies GEN1, GEN4, URB16 and URB17.

Impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings

Saved policy GEN1 permits development where there is no material loss of amenity to existing and adjoining residential uses.

Given the single-storey nature of the proposal and the fact that it is located parallel to an existing garage/outbuilding of a similar scale and massing within the curtilage of the neighbouring dwelling, it is considered that there would be no significant loss of amenity to neighbouring occupiers from the proposal.

The proposal would therefore comply with saved policy GEN1.

Parking

Saved policy GEN1 permits development where there would be adequate arrangements on site for access, servicing or the parking of vehicles. More recently, the Council's Parking Provision Interim Guidance (August 2008) has been adopted.

Although the proposal would result in the in the loss of one parking space through the loss of the existing single garage, in line with the extensive existing off road parking on the site (approximately five parking spaces) it is considered that there would be still be more than adequate parking provision in the site.

The proposal therefore complies with saved policy GEN1 of the Hart Local Plan.

CONCLUSION

The design, scale and appearance of the proposal are considered appropriate for the building and would not detrimental to the wider Ferndale Road street scene. In line with the size of the application plot it is considered that there would be no material impact on either vehicular parking or the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. A suitable condition can secure the use of the proposed accommodation for use ancillary to the main dwelling.

As such, it is considered that the proposal would comply with the relevant saved Plan saved policies.

RECOMMENDATION - Grant Permission

CONDITIONS

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match in type, colour, texture and bond, those on the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual relationship of the new development with the existing building and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

3 The accommodation hereby permitted shall be occupied solely for purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the dwelling and shall not be sold off, sub-let or used as a separate unit of accommodation.

Reason: The site is in an area where new dwellings are not normally permitted.

Reason: The unit of accommodation is not in a satisfactory position and has insufficient private amenity space to be occupied separately from the main dwelling. 90 INFORMATIVES

1 The applicant is advised to make sure that the works hereby approved are carried out with due care and consideration to the amenities of adjacent properties and users of any nearby public highway or other rights of way. It is good practice to ensure that works audible at the boundary of the site are limited to be carried out between 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday, 8am and 12 noon on Saturdays with no working on Sunday and Bank Holidays. The storage of materials and parking of operatives’ vehicles should be normally arranged on site.

2 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. Although the applicant decided to submit amended plans, in this instance the application as submitted was acceptable and no further engagement with the applicant was required.

COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 107

APPLICATION NO. 14/00678/HMC LOCATION 39 Tavistock Road Fleet Hampshire GU51 4EJ PROPOSAL Erection of two storey side extension and a front porch with pitched roof over the existing garage. Construction of a pitched roof to existing rear extension. APPLICANT Mr Nick Steevens CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 25 April 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY 21 May 2014 PLANNING COMMITTEE Cllr Alan Oliver WARD MEMBER RECOMMENDATION Grant Permission

92 Site plan

93 Proposed elevations

95 BACKGROUND

The application is brought to Planning Committee as the applicant is a member of staff in Regulatory Services.

THE SITE

The property is a two storey detached house located on a spur of Tavistock Road in the urban settlement of Fleet. The house was built in the 1960's and is typical of that era with an integral single garage and white cladding at first floor level. A single storey rear extension and a car port has been added.

The rectangular plot comprises some 0.05 hectares and is generally level. The frontage is open plan, in common with other properties in the area and about half the front garden area is block paved to provide parking for 3-4 vehicles.

The rear garden is laid mainly to lawn with several large fir trees towards the rear which are covered by Tree Preservation Orders. At the front, there is a mature 2m high leylandii hedge separating the application site from its neighbour at No.37 to the north-west. Other boundaries are 1.8m fences.

There are 8 detached properties grouped in a semi-circle on this spur road - either in a same style as the application property or in a chalet style. Several have built extensions.

PROPOSAL

The side extension would measure 3m wide and 9.6m deep. It would have a gable roof at the front 6m high, behind which the roof would be continuation of the existing ridge. This would provide an additional garage at ground floor and a bedroom and bathroom at first floor.

A mono-pitch roof would be built over the existing garage and porch.

A dual pitch roof 3.5m high would be constructed over the rear extension.

PLANNING HISTORY

HDC 7975 - Erection of a single storey rear/side extension. Approved 1981

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Fleet Town Council No objection

NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS

No comments received

POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES

A tree preservation order is an order (TPO) is made by the Council in respect of trees or woodlands. The principal effect of a TPO is to prohibit the cutting down, uprooting, topping, lopping, wilful damage, or wilful destruction of trees without the Council's permission. Protection also extends to preventing the cutting of any roots.

96 Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006

GEN1 - General policy for development

GEN4 - General Design Policy

URB1 - Definition of Areas

URB16 - Extensions

T14 - Transport and Development

CON5 - Nature conserv Species Protected

CONSIDERATIONS

Principle of development

The site lies within the urban settlement of Fleet as defined by saved policy URB1, where there is a presumption in favour of development, subject to compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the relevant saved Local Plan policies.

Design and appearance, character of the area

Saved Policies GEN1(i), GEN4 and URB16(i) permit development where the proposal is well designed, is in keeping with the local area and sympathetic to the existing dwelling. The NPPF advises the LPA to take account of the character of different areas and attaches great weight to the importance of good design (para. 17).

The design is considered to be sympathetic to the character of the existing building, extending the existing ridge line and using matching materials. It would be no further forward than the existing building at ground floor and retains a gap of 1m between the house and the north-west side boundary thereby retaining the spatial qualities of the street scene. This would comply with the design guidance for Area B of the West Fleet Neighbourhood Area in the Urban Characterisation and Density Study (UCDS) which recommends that 'extensions should not come forward of the common building line' and 'existing heights should be preserved/copied'.

As such the proposal in considered acceptable in design terms and would comply with saved policies GEN1 and URB16

Neighbour amenity

Saved Policies GEN1(iii) and URB16(iii) permit development where there would be no material loss of amenity to adjoining residential uses. The NPPF advises that planning should seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings (para. 17).

As the extension would be positioned on the north-west side of the property, there would be no material loss of amenity to the neighbour on the south-east side, No.41.

The two storey extension would not protrude beyond the rear elevation of the existing house nor the rear elevation of the neighbour at No.37. No.37 has a window on the side elevation at first floor, but this serves a bathroom. At ground floor No.37 has a car port with tiled roof which is supported on brick pillars. Given this 97 situation, it is considered that there would be no material loss of light or overbearing impact to No.37. No windows are proposed on the side elevation of the extension, so privacy would be maintained; this could be maintained by condition.

The new pitched roof at the rear would be hipped away from the boundary and would be only 3.5m high. Given its single storey nature and modest height, it is considered there would be no unacceptable loss of light from these works.

As such the proposal in considered acceptable in terms neighbour amenity and would comply with saved policies GEN1 and URB16

Parking

Saved Policies GEN1(vii) and T14 require that developments have adequate arrangements for the parking and servicing of vehicles.

The Council’s parking standards require that 3.5 spaces should be provided for a 4 or more bed-roomed house in Zone 2. The 0.5 space is for visitor parking and can be provided off site if this is considered appropriate.

The existing garage is being retained and there are at least 3 spaces available on the wide driveway. The proposal therefore complies with Council policy in this regard.

Biodiversity

Policy CON5 requires that development should not have an adverse effect on protected species or their habitats.

Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, bats are a protected species and it is illegal to intentionally or recklessly damage, disturb or destroy a bat or its habitat. Government advice in the NPPF recommends that Local Planning Authorities should 'aim to preserve or enhance biodiversity (para. 118)'. However, the measures taken to protect a species or their habitats should be proportionate and should not aim at zero risk (Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle. Commission of the European Communities. Brussels 2.02.2000).

The property does not fall within the trigger list, prepared by the Bat Conservation Trust, of properties likely to provide a suitable habitat for bats; therefore a full report by an ecologist is considered unnecessary in this instance. Instead the applicant has submitted a short statement confirming the absence of any signs of bat habitation.

The LPA has considered the possible impact of the development and can be reasonably certain that biodiversity would not be adversely affected. Therefore the proposal would comply with saved policy CON5 and advice in the NPPF.

Impact on the trees

Saved Policy CON8 allows development that does not have an adverse effect on the long term health of trees with amenity value.

Given the position of the proposed extension in relation to the protected trees at the rear, it is considered that there would be no adverse impact on their health as a result of these works.

98 CONCLUSION

The design and appearance is acceptable and there would be no harm to the street scene or material loss of amenity to the neighbouring properties. Biodiversity would not be adversely affected and the parking arrangements are considered adequate. Therefore the proposal would comply with the relevant saved Policies of the Local Plan and national planning guidance.

RECOMMENDATION - Grant Permission

CONDITIONS

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. . Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual relationship of the new development with the existing building and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order with or without modification) no additional windows or doors shall be constructed in the north-west flank elevation of the extension hereby permitted.

Reason: In the interest of the privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining property/properties and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

4 The approved parking facilities for vehicles shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking of motorised vehicles and access shall be maintained at all times to allow them to be used as such.

Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate parking to prevent the likelihood of on-street car parking and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan.

INFORMATIVES

2 The applicant is advised that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, bats are a protected species and it is illegal to intentionally or recklessly damage, disturb or destroy a bat or its habitat. If any evidence of bats is found on site, Natural England must be informed and a licence for development obtained from them prior to works continuing. For further information go to www.naturalengland.org.uk or contact Natural England (S.E. regional office) on 0238 028 6410.

3 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance the application as submitted was acceptable and no further engagement with the applicant was required.

99 COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: APPLICATION NO. 14/00741/FUL LOCATION Frogmore Leisure Centre Potley Hill Road Yateley Hampshire GU46 6AG PROPOSAL Erection of new fencing in association with the laying of a new artificial grass playing surface. APPLICANT Mr Paul Weavers CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 23 May 2014 APPLICATION EXPIRY 28 May 2014 PLANNING COMMITTEE WARD Cllr G Cockarill MEMBER RECOMMENDATION Grant Permission

100 Site plan

101

102 103 BACKGROUND

The application site is Frogmore Leisure Centre a District Council operated leisure centre in Yateley. Under the Council's scheme of delegation the application must be determined by Planning Committee.

Notice of the application was served on Hampshire County Council as land owner on the 30th of April 2014. It however does not expire until the 24th of May 2014. Therefore, the recommendation is delegate to the Head of Regulatory Services to approve the application subject to the expiry of the Notice period and Hampshire County Council not having raising any landownership objection to the development.

PROPOSAL

The Council is proposing to replace the existing worn out artificial surface carpet on the outdoor playing pitch with a 40mm 3G pitch surface. This in itself does not require planning permission and therefore is not subject to this application for planning permission.

However, as part of the overall improvement package the opportunity is being taken to address an issue of nuisance to neighbours by increase the height of the pitches’ perimeter fencing from 3.6 metres to 5 metres. It is this element that requires planning permission. No new floodlighting is proposed and the existing lighting is to be retained.

CONSULTEES RESPONSES

Yateley Town Council

No objection

Natural England

No objections

NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS

At the time of writing this report 6 letters of objection from 5 neighbouring properties and one neutral comment has been received, below is a summary of the main issues raised:

- The development will make flooding at Jesse Close worse [Officer Note: no change is proposed to the existing floodlighting]

- Increased noise due to increasing the width of the facility

- Concern with regards to the hours of operation [Officer Note: No changes to the current hours of use are proposed in this application and the application itself only relates to new fencing]

Officer Note - Additional representations were received from Sport England and Yateley Hockey Club. These comments however, have not been taken into account as they are directed more at the appropriateness of the new 40m 3G surface that is being proposed rather than the development that requires planning permission.

POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES

The development lies within 400m of the Thames Basins Heath Special Protection Area (SPA). This is an area that has been identified as being of international importance for the breeding, feeding, wintering or the migration of rare and vulnerable species of birds found within European Union countries. They are European designated sites, classified under the ‘Birds Directive 1979’ which provides enhanced protection given by the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) status all SPAs also hold. . In most circumstances no new residential development within 400m of an SPA should be allowed.

104 and Countryside Act 1981, as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006.

Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006

GEN1 - General policy for development

RUR2 - Development in open countryside General

RUR35 - Social Infrastructure and Services

GEN11 - Areas affected by flooding-poor drainage

CONSIDERATIONS

MAIN ISSUES

1. Principle of development 2. Impact of design on the character and appearance of the area 3. Impact on neighbouring amenities 4. Parking access and highway safety 5. Impact on flooding

1. Principle of development

The application site is located within the countryside as identified on the proposals map of the Hart District Local Plan (as saved). Within the countryside policy RUR2 allows development to take place where it will not have a significant detrimental effect on the character and setting of the countryside. In this regard the proposed new fencing set within the school/leisure centre grounds would have no impact upon countryside objectives. It also would comply with the terms of Policy RUR35 (Social Infrastructure Services) as it would enhance an existing facility that is on the edge of the settlement and adjacent to other built form on the site.

It is considered that the principle of development would comply with the objectives of Policy RUR2 and RUR35 of the Hart District Local Plan (as saved).

2. Impact of design on the character and appearance of the area

Policy GEN1(i) permits development where the proposal is well designed, is in character with the local area and is sympathetic to the existing dwelling and surrounding properties.

The proposed fencing would to some extent alter the appearance of the sports pitch. However, this would not be harmful to the appearance of the facility or the surrounding area. Whilst the fencing would be more prominent due to the increased height it would not be harmful to the appearance of the area.

The proposed development would comply with the objectives of policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan with regards to the impact on character.

3. Impact on neighbouring amenities

Saved policies GEN1 (iii) and URB16 (ii) permits development where there would be no material loss of amenity to adjoining residential uses. The NPPF advises that planning should seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings (para 17).

The closest neighbouring residential properties are those to the south, with the closest being Darfield House. The pitch is approximately 37 metres form the closest part of the residential curtilage of this neighbouring property. This application does not seek to change the existing flood lighting arrangements or alter the hours of operation. It seek permission only for the increased height of the fence. Given the distances of separation the proposed changes to the facility would not result in a materially different impact on the amenities of occupants of neighbouring properties in the surrounding area. In line with case law, the conditions restricting the use need to be re-imposed.

105 Therefore the development meets the objectives of Policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan (as saved) with regards to residential amenity.

4. Impact on flooding

The application site is not in an area identified as high flood risk. However, a number of objections have been received on flood risk grounds. The Council's Drainage Engineer has reviewed the proposal and confirmed verbally that no objections are raised to this development on flood risk grounds.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development would represent an appropriate form of development within the countryside which would not adversely impact on neighbouring amenities, the character of the area or be likely to increase flood risk.

RECOMMENDATION –

Subject to Hampshire County Council raising no material landownership concerns, the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to GRANT permission upon the expiry of the Notice period on 23 May 2014.

CONDITIONS

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2 There shall be no use of the all weather pitch before 0900 hours or after 2200 hours on Mondays to Thursdays, before 0900 hours and after 2030 hours, Fridays and 0900 hours or after 2000 hours on Saturdays, Sundays or any recognised public holiday.

Reason: To protect the amenities of residents of dwellings near the site, access and car parking in line with saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

3 The lighting of the all weather pitch shall not be illuminated beyond 10 minutes after the cessation times as set out in condition 1 above, until the following morning.

Reason: To protect the amenities of residents of dwellings near the site but to allow a proper closing of the site in line with saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

INFORMATIVES

1 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance:

- The applicant was advised of the necessary information needed to process the application.

- The application as submitted was acceptable and no further engagement with the applicant was required.

106