Cttee: 02/10/13 Item No. 2

Application no: 13/00898/OUT For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Harwood Paddock Newbury Proposal Outline application for up to 49 residential dwellings to include access and the transfer of 0.243 hectares/0.6 acres of land for community use D1/D2

Registered: 24 June 2013 Expiry Date: 10 October 2013 Type of Application: Outline Planning Case Officer: Katherine Miles Application 01256 845249 Applicant: Catesby Kler Land Agent: Ms Rebecca Fenn-Tripp LLP Ward: Ward Member(s): Cllr Clive Sanders

Parish: EAST WOODHAY CP OS Grid Reference: 443425 162227

Recommendation: It is RECOMMENDED that subject to no new material objections being made as a result of the Departure notification (expiring 11 October 2013), the applicant be invited to enter into a legal agreement (in accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and Saved Policies C1, C7, C9 and A2 of the and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011) between the applicant and the Borough and County Councils to secure contributions towards local infrastructure improvements towards:

 Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport  Education  Affordable housing  Off site enhancement of Playing Fields  Provision of or contribution towards a local area of equipped play (LEAP)  Off site enhancement of community facilities  On site provision of a kickabouts and areas of accessible natural green space  On site provision of Percent for Art  Provision of allotments within the Parish of East Woodhay  A Landscape Management Plan  The transfer of 0.443ha/0.6acres of land for community use

Should the requirements set out above not be satisfactorily secured, then the Planning and Development Manager be delegated to REFUSE permission for appropriate reasons.

On completion of the legal agreement the Planning and Development Manager be delegated to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed at the end of this report.

Reasons for Approval

1. The proposed development would deliver housing development in accordance with the Borough's Land Supply requirements. The proposal therefore accords with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012. 2. Whilst the proposed development would constitute major development within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, given the contained nature of the site together with retention of existing boundary vegetation and associated new landscaping, the proposal would preserve the landscape character and scenic quality of the area and as such would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E6 of the Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 3. The proposed development would provide safe access in accordance with highway requirements, and as such would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 and with Saved Policies E1(iii) and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 4. The proposal would conserve the biodiversity value and nature conservation interests of the site and would respect the environment for trees of high amenity value and as such the proposal would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policies E1, E6 and E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 5. The proposed development would respect the character of its surroundings as demonstrated through the Design and Access Statement and illustrative masterplan as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 6. The proposed development would respect the environment of trees of high amenity value and as such would comply with the Council's Landscape and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document and Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 7. The proposed development would provide affordable housing to meet an identified need within a rural area. As such the proposal would comply with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); Saved Policy C2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the Council's Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document. 8. Through the provision of a Section 106 legal agreement the development will provide adequate infrastructure to mitigate the impact of the development. The development therefore complies with Saved Policies C1, C7 and C9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011, the Community Infrastructure Levy regulation 2010 and Hampshire County Council 's adopted Transport Contributions Policy (September 2007).

General comments

This application has been brought to the Development Control Committee, in line with the scheme of delegation, due to the number of objections received.

Additional information has been received in support of this planning application and consequently further consultation was undertaken for 14 days, commencing 2 September 2013.

Planning Policy

The site is located within the countryside and lies outside, but immediately adjacent to the Settlement Policy Boundary of Woolton Hill.

The site lies within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and there are a number of trees along the northern boundary covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

The proposed development is located in Flood Zone 1 (low probability) and the application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) given that the development site is greater than 1ha in size.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government's planning policies for and how these are expected to be applied, and is a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. The following sections of the NPPF are of particular relevance:

Achieving Sustainable Development Core Planning Principles Section 4: Promoting Sustainable Transport Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7: Requiring Good Design Section 8: Promoting Healthy Communities Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (Saved Policies)

For the purposes of decision-taking, Paragraph 211 of the NPPF is clear that the policies within the Local Plan should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of the Framework, whilst Paragraph 212 is clear that the policies within the NPPF are material considerations which Local Planning Authorities should take into account from the day of publication (27 March 2012).

Given that the saved policies of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 were not adopted in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (but were adopted under the transitional arrangements), Paragraph 215 of the NPPF is considered to apply to the current Local Plan. This states: “…due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the framework, the greater the weight may be given to them”.

This means that full weight cannot be given to the saved policies of the current Local Plan and therefore, in determining applications, consideration needs to be given to the degree of consistency a saved policy has with regard to the NPPF. The following saved policies of the Local Plan are considered to have a limited degree of conflict with the NPPF and therefore it is right that some weight be attached to them in decision making:

Location of Development Policies: D5 (Residential and other Development within Settlements) and D6 (New Residential Accommodation in the Countryside)

Environment Policies: E1 (Development Control); E6 (Landscape Character) and E7 (Nature/Biodiversity Conservation)

Social/Community Policies: C1 (S106 Contributions); C2 (Affordable Housing); C3 (Housing Mix); and C9 (New Leisure Facilities or Open Spaces)

Accessibility and Infrastructure Policies: A1 (Car Parking); A2 (Encouraging Walking, Cycling and the Use of Public Transport); A3 (Infrastructure Improvements); and A7 (Water and Sewerage Infrastructure)

Emerging Local Plan

The Council is responsible for the development of planning policies which guide and shape future development in the Borough and in this regard a draft Local Plan, endorsed by Full Council in July 2013, is currently out for Public Consultation. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF states:

“From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

 the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);  the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and  the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).” It should be noted that the application site is listed as a Category 2 site in Version 7 of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2013, (reference WHILL002). The SHLAA states that “the site it is not considered to be suitable for strategic allocation, however it may have potential to come forward through alternative mechanisms such as neighbourhood planning if the development was of an appropriate scale and if any physical constraints could be overcome”. As such, the site has not been put forward by the Council in the emerging Local Plan as a housing allocation site; however this does not preclude the site from development through other mechanisms.

Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance

Appendix 5 Design and Sustainability SPD (Construction Statements) Appendix 6 Design and Sustainability SPD (Waste and Recycling) Appendix 7 Design and Sustainability SPD (Places to Live) Appendix 14 Design and Sustainability SPD (Countryside Design Summary) Residential Amenity Design Guidance SPD 2012 Residential Parking Standards SPD Affordable Housing SPG Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards SPD The Historic Environment: Listed Buildings SPG Woolton Hill Village Design Statement (VDS) SPG Basingstoke Landscape Character Assessment SPG Trees and Development SPG

Other material documents

S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Planning Guidance (Updated 2013) Green Space Standards 2013 EU Habitats Directive and the UK Habitat Regulations The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 Circular 11/95: 'Use of conditions in planning permission'. Code for Sustainable Homes Manual for Streets Hampshire County Council ‘Companion Guide to Manual for Streets’ Hampshire Highways Transport Contributions Policy 2007 Basingstoke Environment Strategy for Transport (BEST) SPG

Description of Site

The application site is located within Woolton Hill, a village to the north west corner of the Borough. Woolton Hill is within the Parish of East Woodhay and is located 6 miles to the south west of Newbury. The village contains a number of local facilities including a general store and post office, a public house, medical centre, church/community hall, and primary schools.

The site is a 3.2ha agricultural field of rough grassland, bounded by a mix of fencing, hedgerow and mature trees. Both the north western and south eastern boundaries are sloping and fall down to the middle of the site, which forms a natural channel. The north western boundary with Tile Barn Row is formed from an avenue of trees, which are under a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). There are also further TPO’s along the south eastern, northern and southern boundaries.

On the opposite side of the road is Harwood Lodge, a Hampshire Registered Historic Park and Garden and Harwood Farm, which is also a stud farm, similar to Gainsborough Stud the other side of Harwood Lodge along Tile Barn Row.

The immediate area is characterised by predominantly large, two storey residential properties set within modest plots. The density of development is typically low, with gaps evident between buildings. There are some typical 1960’s and 1970’s housing estates within the village and also a number of modern infill dwellings. To the north of the site is Tile Barn Row, which is a rural lane without street lighting or pavements and is subject to a 30mph speed limit. The site is surrounded on its remaining three sides by existing residential development. Those dwellings along Broadlayings/Cutters Hill Road, Longmead and Greenways all have the rear gardens of the properties facing onto the site. In the north western corner of the field is a recent development of 16 dwellings by Linden Homes, known as Harwood Court (allowed on appeal under BDB/74064). A number of these dwellings area also rear facing, with one dwelling positioned side-on to the application site. Access to this development is taken off Tile Barn Row.

Proposal

This is an outline application for the erection of up to 49 dwellings and the transfer of 0.243ha/0.6acres of land for community D1 and/or D2 use. Alongside the principle of development, means of access is the only matter for consideration. All other matters, including the layout and appearance of the development are reserved.

Access to the site is proposed to be taken from Tile Barn Row, and the point of access would be located within the north eastern corner of the site. Technical drawings of the proposed access accompany this application.

Assuming a maximum of 49 dwellings, this application proposes:

 a density of 22 dwellings per hectare;  a housing mix comprising 2 no. 2 bed units; 3 no. 3 bed units; 23 no. 4 bed units and 14 no. 5 bed units;  40% affordable housing, comprising 7 units on site (4 no. 2 bed units and 3 no. 3 bed units) with the balance (equating to 12.6 units) taken as an off-site contribution;  0.618ha of on-site multi-purpose public/community open space, including a toddler play space and accessible natural greenspace;  A package of S106 contributions to enhance existing community facilities and undertake improvements to the existing highway infrastructure in the vicinity of the site; and  On site Sustainable Urban Drainage attenuation ponds.

This application also proposes the transfer of 0.243ha / 0.6 acres of land to the community to provide a multi-purpose community use (falling within the D1 and/or D2 Use Class). The transfer is proposed to be secured to the Parish Council via a legal agreement and the ultimate use of the land would be for the local community to determine, in conjunction with the Borough Council, through a Reserved Matters application. This application indicates that the proposed space would be sufficient to accommodate a building of up to 500sqm with scope for up to 24 parking spaces.

Whilst the application proposals are in outline, the applicant has submitted an indicative masterplan; a land use and building heights parameters plan; and indicative cross-sections and streetscenes which illustrate how a development of up to 49 units, together with the proposed community use, could be accommodated on site.

Consultations

East Woodhay Parish Council: Objection:

“Summary:

East Woodhay Parish Council (EWPC) has considered the above Outline Planning Application and concludes that it must object to this development proposal on the grounds that it is an opportunistic exploitation of the Borough’s short term lack of a 5 year land supply, providing housing that is not required, in a location that is unsustainable, and before the community has completed its own Neighbourhood Plan to identify any future housing need. Specifically the proposal demonstrates:-

1. Conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework - 2012 paras. 9, 14, 34, 35, 49, 55, 72, 115 & 176  fails to constitute the sustainable development required  places additional population burden on an already heavily developed village  stretches basic services and amenities beyond already exceeded capacity  no demonstrable need for additional local housing under the draft Local Plan.

2. Conflict with Local Plan Saved Policies A2, C1, D5, E1 & E6  falls outside the Saved Policy Settlement Policy Boundary for Woolton Hill  proposed scope and style inflicts a greater than acceptable impact on this rural community  already stretched health, education and infrastructure services inadequately addressed  cannot be adequately served by public transport in this rural environment  will lead to dangerous traffic pressure on C road choke points during school drop off / commuter periods and further pressure on the primary access junction of C5 / A343.

3. Conflict with B&DBC Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (January 2013)  East Woodhay Parish, and specifically Woolton Hill, are not included as areas scheduled for necessary development.  Not necessary to achieve the borough’s housing requirement of 748 dwellings per annum, included in the Draft Local Plan as agreed by Council on the 25th July 2013

4. Premature submission in context of B&DBC Local Plan revision 2013  housing needs portfolio excluding East Woodhay already completed at the time of application  B&DBC Council has proposed that consultation will commence in mid / late August 2013.  draft Local Plan allows for “… development and redevelopment within the defined Settlement Policy Boundaries” but the proposed development site is outside the defined Settlement Boundary.  terms of a Local Plan so close to final approval are material to consideration of the application.

5. Adverse impact on Local Community services, amenities and infrastructure  proposed development is disproportionate to size and semi-rural location of Woolton Hill  the proposal represents estimated 4.3% one time increase to the Parish population and an estimated increase of over 6% to the population of Woolton Hill village itself,  the land proposed for community use is insufficient to make any significant contribution to providing community facilities and is provided at the expense of achieving a satisfactory level of affordable housing.  proposal fails to demonstrate that it can improve essential services, or sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of the community  adverse impact is identified on local schools, health services, sewerage and highways  Conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework - 2012

1.1 NPPF Paragraph 9: states “Pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life, including (but not limited to):

 making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages;  moving from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains for nature;  replacing poor design with better design;  improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure; and  widening the choice of high quality homes.”

EWPC sees no evidence in the application that any positive improvement is to be made to the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, or to people’s quality of life. Furthermore there is a strong potential both for negative impact on local bio-diversity and for worsening existing conditions for local people of Woolton Hill in aspects of work or leisure pursuits, as significant additional burden will be placed on the already inadequate community infrastructure of the village.

EWPC therefore considers that the proposal fails to constitute sustainable development in an already heavily developed village

1.2 NPPF Paragraph 14: states that approval be considered favourably “unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. EWPC believes that a number of Local Plan saved policies should be considered material (see Section 2 of this document). Further, the near completed status of new Local Plan and of the review of the Borough’s housing land requirements, which totally exclude Woolton Hill as an area of development need, should, in the view of EWPC, be considered as material consideration in this context.

EWPC therefore considers that Full B&DBC Council approval of a draft Local Plan for consultation on 25 July 2013 and the imminent approval of a local plan for B&DBC, which excludes Woolton Hill as a site for necessary housing development, constitutes a material consideration which should support a refusal to grant approval of the application at this time.

1.3 NPPF Paragraph 34: States “Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised.”

There being no available employment in the immediate area, the proposed development will inevitably generate significant additional vehicle movements at peak times on already congested “C” roads” past traffic restricted school areas and utilising inadequate junctions on to major roads. There is no current adequate, or planned sustainable transport system commensurate with the housing style envisaged.

EWPC considers that this development is not to be located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised and should therefore be rejected.

1.4 NPPF Paragraph 35: states, inter alia, “Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people.

 Therefore, developments should be located and designed where practical to accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies;  create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones”

Furthermore, NPPF Paragraph 36: states “A key tool to facilitate this will be a Travel Plan. All developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan”

The submitted Transport Assessment Report ( David Tucker Associates) focusses largely on impacts to the immediate neighbourhood of Tile Barn Row, with some reference to historical accident rates at the Andover Road junction with the C5 access to Woolton Hill, but significantly makes no significant assessment of the inevitable impact imposed by the occupants of an additional 49 dwellings on the already heavily over congested road (C5) outside St Thomas Infant School and Woolton Hill Junior School especially during the critical morning period of school drop off and commuter access to Newbury, Basingstoke and Andover. Vehicles, including large delivery vehicles, are often seen to be mounting the pedestrian pavement to enable traffic passage at a time of peak pavement use by young children and parents. Similarly the increased traffic at the already peak congested and uncontrolled C5/A343 junction will pose significant additional threat to parents with children attempting to cross from the Hills direction.

EWPC considers that the Travel Plan inadequately addresses the traffic danger choke points in relation to the impact of the additional vehicle movements at peak times and offers no realistic option of amelioration. It should therefore be rejected.

Furthermore EWPC notes that by providing only a single traffic access/exit point for the entire complex it fails to meet the guidelines for community development as expressed in Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) – 2008 on Design and Sustainability ( special reference: Appendix 7 Places to Live)

1.5 NPPF Paragraph 55: states “To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities”

Contrary to the Sustainability Statement submitted by Turley & Associates in which it is stated that “The proposals will deliver up to 49 new homes for Woolton Hill which are needed to meet a growing demand.” However neither is there a demonstrable local housing need in the village or parish of the type or dimension proposed, nor can it be considered that this proposal will enhance or maintain the vitality of the rural community’s development. Furthermore, the majority of respondents to a specific parish questionnaire reject the need for such a development in their community (89% of respondents). The report submitted by Turley & Associates claims “The development will positively contribute to the growth of the local rural economy bringing new homes and jobs, services and revenues.”, that “The application is in an accessible and sustainable location with access to public transport, essential services and pedestrian routes.” Further that it “Contributes to development of a strong local economy through the construction of up to 67 new homes with associated economic uplifts.” and “The development will provide much needed new and affordable homes that will help support the local economy through jobs, investment and support to new services”

There is no supportive evidence to demonstrate the local need for or benefit from such a development; indeed evidence suggests that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the local community.

EWPC considers that the application fails to meet the criteria of NPPF Para 55 and should consequently be rejected.

1.6 NPPF Paragraph 72: states “Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should:-  give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools and  work with schools promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted.”

There is insufficient evidence in the application that either of these two requirements has been adequately met for a community in which parents already express their concern that children cannot gain access to local schools.

EWPC considers that the application fails to meet the criteria of NPPF Para 72 and should consequently be rejected

1.7 NPPF Paragraph 115: states “Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty”.

Whilst emphasis is placed on a local Ecological Appraisal prepared by The Environmental Dimension Partnership (EDP), the planning application gives insufficient weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which has the highest status of protection in relation to these matters. This report also consistently incorrectly refers to the “Kent Valley Alderwoods Special Area of Conservation” which does not exist. It is assumed that the attempted referral is to the Kennet Valley SSSI.

EWPC considers that the application does not give the required weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty so as to meet the criteria of NPPF Para 115

1.8 NPPF Paragraph 176: states “Where safeguards are necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms, development should not be approved if the measures required cannot be secured through appropriate conditions or agreements.” With reference especially also to 1.4 above, it is acknowledged that Section 106 contributions are to be made if planning permission is granted. However there is no definite plan as to how this money can be appropriately spent to adequately alleviate the adverse impacts of the proposed development e.g. in relation to school places, highway safety etc.)

EWPC considers that the application does not describe sufficient corrective measures to satisfy the requirements of Para 176 and should be rejected.

2. Conflict with Local Plan Saved Policies A2, C1, D5, E1 & E6

2.1 Saved Policy A2: states “The Borough Council will only grant planning permission for developments with vehicular and pedestrian generation implications where:

1. cycling and walking infrastructure are integrated with the development and linked with surrounding networks; and 2. development takes account of the needs of public transport.

Elsewhere within the Plan area opportunities will be examined to improve provision for pedestrians, cyclists and to encourage the use of public transport including community transport in areas not served by conventional public transport. Additionally, the funding of local transport improvements will be sought in conjunction with new development where appropriate.

The proposed development fails to take account of the lack of adequate public transport provision in the village (Stagecoach routes 7/21/22) coupled with the very limited local availability for supply of provisions and no public transport whatsoever on a Sunday. The consequent increase in local car journeys, which would occur as a direct result of the proposals, is not adequately addressed in the submission.

EWPC considers that the number and style of dwellings in the application will not be adequately addressed by public transport and will inevitably lead to significant increase in traffic movement on C roads, dangerous traffic pressure during school drop off / commuter periods and pressure on the primary access junction of C5 / A343.

2.2 Saved Policy C1: states “Development will be permitted only where there are, or will be, adequate infrastructure and community facilities. Where provision is inadequate, developers will be required to provide the infrastructure and community facilities necessary to allow the development to proceed. The Council will negotiate to secure planning obligations to ensure that such infrastructure and facilities are provided in time to meet the needs arising from the Development.”

Despite the necessary commitment to provision of finance under Section 106 Contributions, the proposed development fails to demonstrate how sufficient improvements to existing infrastructure and community facilities can be implemented to effectively mitigate against the this substantial development’s impact on the local area.

EWPC considers that the scope and style of dwellings proposed will inevitably inflict a greater impact on this rural community and its already stretched health, education and infrastructure services than that described by the applicant in the application. EWPC does not believe that the allocation of S106 monies will offset this deleterious effect.

2.2 Saved Policy D5: states “Residential and other development and redevelopment proposals which contribute to social, economic and environmental well-being will be permitted within the Settlement Policy Boundaries of the following settlements: , Basingstoke Town and , Bramley , , , Dummer, , , Oakley, , Overton , , , St. Mary Bourne, , / / Heath, , Whitchurch , Woolton Hill”

However the application site falls outside the Settlement Policy Boundary for Woolton Hill as delineated in the above Saved Policy. Areas outside of Settlement Policy Boundaries are described as countryside for the purposes of this Plan within the Saved Policy D5. Residential development under Policy D5 is described as taking the form of small–scale development, infill, redevelopment and regeneration opportunities, conversions or subdivisions, and windfall development. Reference is made, in 1.50 of Saved Policy D5, to small site development being of less than 10 dwellings.

Paragraph 1.52 of the Saved Policy D5 acknowledges that exceptional circumstances can sometimes apply. However, it states that, in assessing such applications, particular regard will be given to whether the site lies in a sustainable location (as defined in the Plan’s glossary) and whether the proposal will protect and maintain the rural and landscape character of the locality. The ‘Sustainable Location’ is described as “A location which, for new housing, is easily accessible to employment, education, retail, community and other facilities by a choice of attractive means of transport other than the private car…”

EWPC does not consider that the proposal satisfies the above criteria of the Saved Policy.

2.3 Saved Policy E1: states “Proposals for new development will be permitted provided that they are of a high standard of design, make efficient use of land, respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and do not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety.”

Attention is drawn to the EWPC comments at 1.3, 1.4 and 2.1 above. The size and nature of the proposed development would inevitably generate traffic of an inappropriate amount for restricted roads especially the C5 throughway of the village, on which two schools and access to a pre- school are situated. The submitted Transport Assessment Report conspicuously makes no reference to this aspect of the traffic status of the village.

EWPC does not consider that the proposal satisfies the above criteria of the Saved Policy.

2.4 Saved Policy E6: states “Planning permission will only be granted where it is demonstrated that the proposals will be sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of the area concerned. Development proposals should contribute to the regeneration, restoration, repair or conservation of any landscape likely to be affected.”

It further states that “In particular they should respect, and improve …. “visual amenity and scenic quality; …the setting of a settlement, including important views to, across and out of settlements; and the local character of buildings and settlements, including important open areas….”

The introduction of the Linden Homes housing development is already considered by the majority of local residents as a significant blight on the local landscape. The new proposed development neither respects nor improves visual amenity and scenic quality, the setting of Woolton Hill (including important views to, across and out of the settlement). Nor is there evidence that this provides a positive contribution to the setting and character of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

EWPC does not consider that the proposal satisfies the above criteria of the Saved Policy.

3. Conflict with B&DBC Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (January 2013)

3.1 Appendix 4 to Version 7 of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (January 2013) identifies the application site as WHILL002 and makes the following comments on its development potential for housing:

‘The site lies outside but adjacent to the Settlement Policy Boundary as defined under saved Policy D5 of the ALP. The site is not considered to be suitable for strategic allocation, however, it may have potential to come forward through alternative mechanisms such as neighbourhood planning if the development was of an appropriate scale and if any physical constraints could be overcome.’

3.2 The Housing Requirements Report submitted by Pioneer Property Services Ltd in support of the applicant disputes the now defined annual Borough housing requirement ( now set at 748 per annum) as “being arguably too low” and bases its argument for “imperative” development in East Woodhay on its own recommendation of a 945 dwellings per annum future need – a 26% surfeit.

3.3 The Officers’ latest recommended land portfolio was approved by Full Borough Council on 25th July 2013. East Woodhay Parish, and specifically Woolton Hill, are not included as areas scheduled for necessary development to meet the designated target of an additional 748 dwellings per annum in the borough. With the development and anticipated approval of a Local Plan work has now commenced for the creation of a Neighbourhood Plan to be commensurate with the outline planning framework for the Borough. It therefore follows that there is no current Neighbourhood Plan available against which to judge the possible extension to beyond existing Settlement Policy Boundaries for the Parish

3.4 The scale of the proposed development is of a wholly disproportionate scale to the size and semi-rural location of Woolton Hill, representing an estimated 4.3% one time increase to the Parish population and an estimated increase of over 6% to the population of Woolton Hill village itself. This can only result in significant impact on existing community and transport services and infrastructure.

3.5 If approved, the 49 dwellings would contribute a highly disproportionate 6.55% of the target additional annual housing provision for the Borough for a year from a community representing only 2.48% of the Borough population in a location substantially removed from the designated areas of predicted population growth.

EWPC notes the exclusion of Woolton Hill as a site for development in the prospective Local Plan, sees no imperative for a development at Harwood Paddock as the Local Plan and considers it disproportionate and inappropriate that the Settlement Policy Boundary of Woolton Hill be amended to facilitate development of this site. A survey of residents supports this view.

4. Premature submission in context of B&DBC Local Plan revision 2013

4.1 B&DBC Full Council approved the draft Local Plan for consultation on 25 July 2013 and has proposed that consultation will commence in mid / late August 2013 with a view to eventual adoption in July 2014. A number of policy statements within this draft plan are applicable to this proposal and should be taken into consideration.

4.2 Draft Policy: SS1 Scale and Distribution of New Housing states: “Within the period 2011 – 2029, the Local Plan will make provision to meet 13,464 dwellings and associated infrastructure. This will be provided by: a) Permitting development and redevelopment within the defined Settlement Policy Boundaries, which contribute to social, economic and environmental well-being. Sites outside of defined Settlement Policy Boundaries will be considered to lie in the countryside;”

The proposed development of up to 49 dwellings will be situated outside existing Settlement Policy Boundaries and in contradiction to the Local Plan once adopted. Further there is no demonstrable need for such development within the Local Plan or Parish Plan for such a dramatic increase in housing. To consider it in advance would not constitute a small scale proposal and would not be needed to meet any future housing needs within the local community.

EWPC considers this application to be premature and disproportionate to local need.

4.3 Draft Policy CN5 states : “New development will be required to provide and contribute towards the provision of additional services, facilities and infrastructure at a rate, scale and pace to meet the needs and requirements that are expected to arise from that development.”

Draft Policy CN6 states: “Development proposals will be permitted where they provide or improve essential services, and sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of communities.”

Draft Policy CN7 states: “Development proposals will be permitted where they: a) Retain and maintain existing facilities which are valued by the community; b) Improve the quality and capacity of facilities valued by the community; c) Provide new facilities, in accordance with adopted council standards, where there is evidence of need that cannot be met by existing provision; d) Are delivered to prescribed timescales to meet the needs of the community that are being provided for.”

The planning application fails to demonstrate adequate provision of or improvement to additional services, facilities and infrastructure at a rate, scale and pace to meet the needs and requirements that arise from that development(e.g. the infant and junior school, doctors’ surgery, church hall, etc), despite imposing additional pressure on them all.

EWPC considers the application fails to demonstrate or provide for a sustainable impact on local services.

4.4 Draft Policy CN8 states: “Development should seek to minimise the need to travel, promote opportunities for sustainable transport modes, improve accessibility to service and support the transition to a low carbon future.”

The proposed development does not demonstrate any reduction in the need to travel, nor does it promote opportunities for sustainable transport modes or improve accessibility to local services. Furthermore, the proposals will result in inappropriate traffic generation, which could compromise highway safety and will have an adverse impact on the operation, safety and accessibility to the local highway network.

EWPC considers the application fails to demonstrate improved accessibility and will indeed be detrimental to already challenged highway systems

4.5 Draft Policy EM1states: “Development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated, through an appropriate assessment, that the proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned.”

The proposed development does not realistically demonstrate sympathy with the character and visual quality of the local area, nor can it be considered to improve and enhance the landscape, visual amenity and scenic quality of a site within the North Wessex Downs AONB.

EWPC considers the application fails to demonstrate appropriate sympathy with the character and quality of the local area.

5. Impact on Local Community services, amenities and infrastructure

5.1 The impact of the dimension of development on a small community has been detailed above. However in feedback to a Parish Council Forum respondents ranked concerns of potential detrimental impact as follows:- EWPC considers the application wholly disproportionate to need and likely to adversely affect services, amenities and infrastructure.

5.2 Consideration has been given to the inclusion of 0.243 hectares/0.6 acres of land for community use D1/D2 in this application. Some options for its possible use have been suggested which may include, though not exclusively, relocation of health services to be more central to the village with adequate parking, use of land as allotments, relocation of a new community village hall, creation of a new day care centre and general recreation.

5.3 In its Statement of Community Involvement supplied by Curtin & Co the applicant refers to “levels of engagement” with the community. Care should be taken in interpretation of this, especially as the opening premise to the public was a statement that the Borough Council “only has enough deliverable land for 3.4 years supply which represents a significant shortfall of land for housing”. Proposals are now before B&DBC to adequately address this land supply shortfall without recourse to additional land utilisation in East Woodhay. The consequent quoted responses from the attending public should therefore be considered in light of a, perhaps unintentional, misleading premise.

5.4 A further quoted Statement of Community Involvement in the application viz “Following local engagement, there is a clear desire within the community to use this development opportunity to benefit from an improved community facility/use… “should be seen in the context that consideration was between a 67 dwelling development without any community use and a 49 dwelling development with some community use. The option that both applications could be rejected was not made clear to respondents.

EWPC accepts that good use could be made of any available community land. However, it believes that any considered needs for community land should be contained within an appropriate Neighbourhood Plan. This awaits the provision of the B&DBC Local Plan from which overall guiding policies must be derived.

In formulating its response, EWPC has taken due account of:-  independent communications received from parishioners, neighbouring parish councils, societies and local service providers of education and health  the outcome of a public meeting arranged on behalf of the developer (Catesby Kler Land PPL)  briefings, presentations and communications in support of the application from Catesby Kler Land PPL by Turley Associates, Pioneer Property Services, and Curtin & Co  the national census data for the ward of East Woodhay for 2001 and 2011  the National Planning Policy Framework 2012  the saved policies of the Adopted Local Plan for (1996-2011) for Basingstoke & Deane Borough  the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2008 on Design and Sustainability (special reference: Appendix 7 Places to Live)  the East Woodhay Parish Plan 2007  89% of responding parishioners to a Parish Forum Poll have responded against the granting of permission for the application.”

Comments received 11 September 2013: “The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has reviewed the further documents and see no reason to change the views previously expressed.”

Planning Policy and Implementation Team: Comments:

“Given the current 5 year land supply position, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF applies. However, the significance of the AONB and the weight given to its conservation needs to be taken into account (NPPF Chapter 11) along with the proposal being contrary to Saved Policies C2, C3 and D8 and the need to balance the adverse impacts against the benefits the development would bring.” Housing Services: No objection.

Local Highway Authority: No objection subject to conditions.

Landscape Officer: No objection subject to conditions.

Urban Design Officer: No objection subject to conditions.

Open Spaces Officer: No objection in principle subject to provision of open space, including a kickabout, in accordance with adopted policy at reserved matters stage.

Community Facilities Officer: No objection.

Biodiversity Officer: No objection subject to conditions and an informative.

Tree Officer: No objection subject to conditions.

Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions.

Drainage Officer: No comment.

Hampshire County Highway Team: No objection subject to provision of S106 contribution to secure off-site highway improvements.

Hampshire County Education Authority: No specific comments received, however comments made within the Scoping Proforma

Hampshire County Archaeologist: No objection.

Hampshire Constabulary: No objection, however wish to reserve the right to comment upon any reserved matters application.

North Wessex Downs AONB Unit: Objection:

“The "presumption" in favour of sustainable development does not apply within AONBs because of Paragraph 14 footnote 9 of the NPPF. The following appeal references confirm this: APP/W0340/A/12/2173977 (paragraph 128), APP/B1605/A/11/2164597 (paragraph 56), and APP/F1610/A/11/2165778 which was also called in by the Secretary of State (now with the High Court) who stated:

"The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the special emphasis in the presumption in favour of granting planning permission in such circumstances does not automatically apply in this case, because of the specific policies in the Framework that indicate development should be restricted and the duty to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB."

In this case there is no need to consider this site for housing, as adequate provision for housing is being made through the Local Plan process.

Basingstoke and Deane is a District where AONB avoidance is an option and where the majority of its settlements and likely housing sites lie outside this nationally protected landscape.

It is noted that provision has been made through Policy SS5 of the draft Local Plan for 150 dwellings to other settlements – however again many options exist outside the AONB which should be considered instead of this site – (NPPF 17 Core Planning Principles “Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework.”)

The AONB is protected by law through the CRoW Act 2000. Through Section 85 of the CRoW Act there is a legal duty on all those in authority to consider the "conservation and enhancement" of the AONB in reaching their decision. House building outside settlement boundaries within the countryside of a nationally protected landscape will not conserve or enhance the natural characteristics of the area and will lead to a serious precedent. There are many parts of the AONB characterised by low density sporadic areas of housing where “infill” may at first seem a logical option. However, by allowing infill of these sites will lead to unsustainable growth and a suburbanisation of the countryside which will have a negative impact on the rural character of what is recognised as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The NPPF confirms at paragraph 115 that AONBs have the highest level of landscape and scenic beauty protection and that "great weight" should be afforded to conserving them. I am pleased to see that the applicant has referred to paragraph 116 of the NPPF. It should be noted that the starting point for such applications in the AONB according to this paragraph are that applications should be “refused”.

We do not disagree with the previous Inspector’s comments about the level of landscape impact if this site were to be carefully developed. However, the protection of the AONB is in the wider public interest and we believe this District can meet its 5 year housing obligations without having to consider sites in settlements of this size within the nationally protected AONB.”

Natural England: No objection.

Environment Agency: No objection: Comments refer the LPA to the Standing Advice produced by the Agency on minimising flood risk.

Thames Water (Wastewater): “A Sewerage Impact Study has been requested by the developer and is in progress. On completion of the study, any infrastructures upgrades required will be identified. Any upgrades identified will need to be implemented prior to occupation.”

Thames Water: Supplementary Comments:

Waste Comments: Following initial investigation, Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this application. Should the Local Planning Authority look to approve the application, Thames Water would like a 'Grampian Style' condition imposed.

Wastewater: A Wastewater Network Impact Study is in progress, the results of which will identify if capacity is available in the existing wastewater infrastructure or whether upgrades are required. Therefore, a grampian style condition should be applied to ensure that no discharge from the development is permitted until any upgrades identified by the impact study are implemented.

Public Observations

Forty three letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:

 Premature.  Outside SPB and not considered as part of the strategic allocation in the SHLAA.  No neighbourhood plan has come forward for alternative development.  Prejudice community to plan development for this site.  Unwarranted development forced on the village by developers.  Unsustainable as increases need for car journeys.  Village has some facilities but not sufficient to support a new development.  Not appropriate to amend SPB of Woolton Hill to facilitate this development.  Emerging Local Plan states that significant development should be in centres that have sufficient facilities to minimise car use.  Development would be equivalent to 1-2% of the Boroughs housing need.  Housing need report is out of line with and against the thrust of the Council’s policy to focus future housing in strategic places.  Housing provision should be based on a need for that housing, not just to satisfy a numbers game.  No evidence base for need in Woolton Hill.  This would result in a 15% increase in the size of the village.  Large development for a village that does not have infrastructure of a town.  Development would be in the far northern extremity of the Borough where the development would clearly not serve the housing needs of the Basingstoke urban area.  Development proposed in Newbury will meet any need for housing in this area.  Development in Newbury will place increased pressure on existing infrastructure in the village.  Permission refused on this site 10 years ago, nothing has changed.  Contrary to NPPF as development would result in adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  Contrary to saved policies of existing Local Plan.  Development is contrary to the draft policies of the emerging Local Plan.  If a development of this size can skirt around the Local Plan, why bother with one at all?  Site is within the AONB - surely we should be protecting these areas.  Area makes a valuable contribution to the local landscape.  Field provides a vital green lung.  Destroy the AONB and the identity of the village.  Proposal would turn this village into suburbia.  Scale of development is inappropriate.  The density of the Linden Homes site is higher than that of the village as a whole and was only achieved on appeal.  There is no going back once a development is built.  Linden Homes development is an eyesore.  Site contributes to the character of the village.  Character of village would be changed by development.  Destroy uniqueness of area.  Development is characteristic of a suburban environment.  Development will look very similar to Royal Chase, which is regarded as a blot on the landscape.  Completely out of character with the village.  Detrimental to the village.  Not a high quality residential environment.  Over dense, insufficient room for pavements and landscaping.  Cramped development.  Development of 2.5 storey homes and townhouses will be out of character with the village.  Large dwellings with disproportionately small gardens.  Roads put under additional pressure.  Speeding is a problem in the village.  Penwood crossroads will not cope with more users.  Road outside school is congested already.  Traffic assessment is incorrect and underestimates the impact of this development on existing roads.  Tile Barn Row is not a well-maintained road.  No parking figures given for the 67 house development.  Houses should have at least 3 parking spaces excluding garages.  Traffic generated by construction traffic will be too great for Tile Barn Row, which is a small country lane.  Increase in traffic would affect the day to day working of the Gainsborough Stud.  Scale of development will affect highway safety for both vehicles and pedestrians.  Tile Barn Row should be widened, have a footpath installed and be lit, to avoid accidents arising from existing speeding and increased traffic from this development.  Traffic assessments grossly underestimate the additional car journeys arising from this development.  Do not require road improvements if no increase in housing.  Proposed access to site is too close to existing Broadlayings junction.  One access to this site seems poorly thought through.  Local roads will become rat runs  No need for affordable homes in the village.  Already have enough social housing.  No need for small properties.  Young people moving in to social houses will need a car as no public transport.  No local employment.  Is 40% affordable housing really right for Woolton Hill?  Local infrastructure cannot cope with development.  Local schools cannot take more pupils.  Water system cannot cope.  Putting additional pressure on the water system could be an eco-disaster.  Need to robustly assess any drainage strategy.  Flooding issues in village.  Paddock is constantly flooded.  Nothing is being done to prevent flooding in the village – drains are blocked and are not being cleared.  Why is this village even considered for development given current infrastructure issues?  Local doctors surgery cannot cope with new residents.  Already difficult to get an appointment with a doctor given recent influx of new residents.  Surgery has little parking currently.  Woolton Hill is known for power outages.  Additional housing will exacerbate these issues.  Impact on quality of education environment if schools are extended and children placed in temporary classrooms.  Infant School cannot educate all children in its catchment and has insufficient space to expand.  If schools cannot expand to take more children, where will the children go to school?  Overlooking.  Overshadowing.  Loss of privacy.  Noise and disturbance for existing residents.  Moved to village due to the peace and quiet.  Loss of view.  Residents have endured months of building works from Royal Chase development and have endured enough.  Current amenities match the number of residents and achieves a balance between rural beauty and amenities.  Additional residents would stretch these resources.  Loss of green space.  Existing green space should be preserved.  Loss of trees.  Many trees on site are protected and will be impacted upon by this development.  Insufficient attention paid to improving the environment.  Little green space within the development.  Better if a significant part of the site was not subject to development.  Allocated community land could be seen as a benefit, but would not be sufficient to mitigate the impacts of this development.  A community hall located at this new site would reduce the revenue for the church, which is currently the centre of the village.  Revenue is important to the church as used for upkeep and repairs.  The transfer of land would not prevent overcrowding in the existing schools.  Additional 49 homes would be completely out of scale in a semi-rural area with limited facilities.  Misleading to suggest that there is deport for this scheme, as if asked whether you would prefer 49 homes or 70 homes to be built in your area you would say 49, but this does not mean that you support the development.  This scheme is more acceptable in that the overall density is lower.  The scheme has taken account the results of consultation.  Impact on wildlife.  Loss of habitat.  Wildlife survey unrepresentative due to reports of load explosions on the field.  Rumour has it that bird scarers being used.  Net loss of biodiversity.  S106 payments should have no bearing whatsoever on the decision to grant an application.  Evidence that S106 monies from Harwood Court spent elsewhere in the county and not a single penny went to the Parish.  Demonstrated that these payments do not come back to the local area to compensate for the impact on infrastructure and the loss of amenity.  No definitive plan as to how money will be spent so no reassurance that adverse impacts will be satisfactorily overcome.  Statement of community involvement does not accurately reflect strong objections to the proposals.  Statements are misleading and many statements disputed.  Factual errors in documentation.  Standard boilerplate without understanding the particular context of this site.  Street lighting will ruin night skies.  A travesty.  Loss of value.  Damage to property caused by other building works in the area – who compensates for this?  Who will buy these homes when not all the new homes at Harwood Court have been sold?  Land should be used for the community e.g. a small shopping centre, hairdresser, pharmacy, greengrocer, village hall etc.  Litter left by construction works is disgusting.  Development is not wanted by local residents and not needed in this area.

Two letters of support have been received raising the following comments:

 A welcome development of much needed housing on a presently barren site.  Proposals address the need for further accommodation in Woolton Hill.  Area of land is in need of development.  Born and raised in Woolton Hill and would like to move back to raise a family.  There is a lack of affordable housing in the village, so cannot afford to move back.  Village needs more housing so people can move back and give to the community.  Appreciate Woolton Hill is a pretty village, and a desirable place to live, however everyone should have the same change to choose to move to a village like this, to raise a family and contribute to village life.  If more affordable housing is not available, how can local schools continue?  They will just continue to take children from other areas, like Newbury and Thatcham.  Eventually Woolton Hill will just have an aging population.  The paddock has not been used by the village, but now that the land is proposed for housing, villagers seem to wish to use the land.  Use of the land for allotments seems strange as houses in Woolton Hill have gardens which could be used for growing vegetables.  Three is plenty of unused land in Woolton Hill.  Paddock has never been suitable for anything other than building.  Building can only improve this unused land.  Building will bring more resources to the village.

In response to the consultation on the additional supporting information, five letters raising further objection have been received:

 Not addressed concerns.  Legal view bases its view on three recent cases, and focuses primarily on numbers and not context.  Tetbury and Cuckfield are significantly larger villages, and therefore the developments are smaller in proportion than is the case with Harwood Paddock.  Stage 1 RSA carried out prior to the start of term so irrelevant.  Although no accidents recorded, there have been many close shaves.  Why should residents be forced to walk through a new housing estate?  Bat survey proves there are bats.  How can this be solving a housing issue if larger properties in Royal Chase remain unsold?  People want a nice house with a big garden not an estate house costing the same.  Money making scheme.  Does not contribute to the village at all.  Issues relating to school places, traffic, sewerage not addressed.  Tone of letter from the applicant is pressuring the Council to make a premature decision.  Application should go before an appropriate planning committee rather than being determined by a Planning Officer.  Precedent for other developers to use similar arguments regarding development in an AONB and proved local need v’s Borough need.  How is this not major development?  Development is not needs as at least 7000 new homes proposed to be built in a 20-25mile radius, with 3000 of these already granted.

Relevant Planning History

BDB/46230 Erection of business units, new access, associated car Withdrawn parking and landscaping 18/09/2000

BDB/51776 Erection of business units, new access, associated car Refused parking and landscaping 07/06/2002

BDB/54544 Erection of 5 no. business units, new access, associated Granted car parking and extensive landscaping 06/10/2003

BDB/58703 Erection of 5 no. business units, new access, associated Granted car parking and extensive landscaping 12/08/2004

BDB/59580 Erection of 5 no. business units, new access and Granted associated car parking 12/04/2006

BDB/63355 Erection of 5 no. two storey office units (Amendment to Granted planning permission BDB/59580 for re-design of units 1, 3, 26/07/2006 4 and 5 and alterations to parking arrangements)

BDB/64299 Repositioning of unit 3 and amendment to parking layout Granted for unit 3 (Amendment to planning permission BDB 63355) 13/10/2006

BDB/65674 Erection of 2 no. B1 office units with associated parking Granted 23/05/2007

BDB/72168 Outline application for the erection of 20 retirement Refused dwellings (Class C3 - managed residential accommodation 11/06/2010 for the elderly) including layout and access. Appeal Dismissed 27/06/2011

BDB/74064 Erection of 16 no. dwellings including associated Refused infrastructure and landscaping 22/06/2011 Appeal Allowed 06/01/2012 Assessment

The assessment on this application is broken down into the following sections:

 Principle of Development  Community Facility Provision  Highway Assessment  Impact on Landscape Character and Visual Amenity  Affordable Housing  Housing Mix  Impact on Amenity  Impact on the Natural Environment  Flood Risk and Drainage  Code for Sustainable Homes  Local Infrastructure and Community Facilities  Consultation Comments  Conclusion

It should be noted that the Local Planning Authority has confirmed that an Environment Impact Assessment is not required in this instance.

In addition, it should be noted that this application would, if approved, constitute a departure from the development plan since granting planning permission for residential development on this site would not accord with the provisions of a development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated.

The application was not publicised correctly via the site notice or press notice as a departure, and therefore a revised site notice was displayed on 16 September (CHECK!) and a revised press notice was displayed on 19 September 2013. Given that the nature of the proposal has not changed, and that the application has been consulted upon publically by the Council and widely by the Parish Council and applicant, it is considered unlikely that any further significant objections would be received. However, the recommendation made by Officers is subject to completion of this public consultation period and receipt of no further significant objection to the principle of a departure.

Should the Council resolve to approve this application, there will be no requirement to refer the application to the Secretary of State as a departure from the Local Plan as the relevant regulations have either been met or do not apply in this case. The Secretary of State does however maintain the power to call-in the application up until the point a decision is issued.

Principle of Development

This site lies outside, but is immediately adjacent to the Settlement Policy Boundary of Woolton Hill (as defined under Saved Policy D5 of the BDBLP). The site is therefore within the countryside and the proposed development would constitute a departure from the Development Plan. As noted above, the site is also within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

It should also be noted that the Draft Local Plan, currently available for public consultation until 4 October 2013, has no weight in decision-making in accordance with Paragraph 116 of the NPPF. Therefore, no weight has been given to it in forming this recommendation.

 Sustainable Development

The NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to approach decision-taking in a positive way, to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The three dimensions to achieving sustainable development are defined in the NPPF as: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions are also referenced within the adopted Local Plan at Saved Policy D5, where it is recognised that “Residential … proposals which contribute to social, economic and environmental well-being will be permitted”. Whilst this is set out in relation to existing Settlement Policy Boundaries, rather than Greenfield sites, it is clear that these three dimensions are relevant in determining this application.

In this regard, housing development will assist in boosting the housing market and contributing to the economy of the Borough. Additional households in an area will make a social contribution through supporting and sustaining existing community services, creating a vibrant community and providing housing in an area to support present and future needs. Whilst there is doubt over whether a new community centre is required, the D1 and D2 use classes include a variety of uses that would benefit the community and therefore the transfer of the land to the community is considered to be a benefit of this scheme. Furthermore, through a comprehensive landscape management plan, the preservation of existing protected trees and biodiversity a development can perform an environmental role (discussed in more detail in the remainder of this report). Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development would constitute sustainable development under the NPPF.

The Core Planning Principles of the NPPF state that planning should proactively drive and support sustainable development to deliver the homes and thriving places that the country needs. Every effort should be made to objectively identify and then meet the housing and development needs of an area and respond positively to the wider opportunities for growth. The core principles also focus on delivering high quality design, recognising the different roles and characters of different areas, conserving the natural environment, and actively managing patters of grown to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and focusing significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states: “At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking … For decision-taking, this means1:

 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 planning permission unless: o any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole; or o specific policies in the Framework indicate that the development should be restricted2.”

The site is located within the North Wessex Downs AONB, which is afforded the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty as recognised by Paragraph 115 of the NPPF. Paragraph 116 goes on to state that “planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of:

 the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;  the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and  any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.”

It is therefore necessary to consider whether the proposal constitutes “major development” within the AONB. If so, it would be appropriate to apply Paragraph 116 of the NPPF and it would then be necessary to consider whether there are “exceptional circumstances” which demonstrate that such major development should be permitted in the AONB in the public interest. It is important to note that only “major developments” within an AONB would need to satisfy the exceptions test. Therefore, if an application is not considered to be “major development”, there is no requirement to

1 Unless material considerations indicate otherwise 2 For example those policies relating to designated sites such as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (see Paragraph 116) show that exceptional circumstances are met or that granting planning permission for the development would be in the public interest. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF would however remain relevant and the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply. It would clearly still be necessary to give full consideration to the impact of the development on the landscape character and scenic beauty of the area as a whole and to consider the benefits of the proposal against the impacts. In short, if the benefits outweigh the impacts, then the development should be approved. These matters are considered in the following sections.

Definition of Major Development within the AONB

The applicant has submitted a legal opinion in support of this application. In respect of this proposal for 49 dwellings, the applicant has been unable to demonstrate that the proposal is, or is not, classified as a major development and thus whether exceptional circumstances need to be demonstrated to show it is in the public interest. Officers have therefore sought to make their own assessment, which is set out below.

The NPPF provides no definition of what constitutes “major development”. It is therefore necessary to review previous appeal decisions, which act as case-law, in making a determination. A summary of recent decisions is provided below:

Berrells Road, Tetbury (APP/F1610/A/12/2173305) - Secretary of State (SoS) Decision Letter dated 13 February 2013:

This was an outline application for up to 39 dwellings within the Cotswold AONB. The SoS agreed with the Inspectors recommendation that the appeal should be allowed. Like the Inspector, the SoS saw no reason to differ from a joint conclusion between the parties that in the particular circumstances of this case, the proposal did not constitute major development. However the SoS agreed that this does not lessen the great weight that should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONB’s and that “sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that 39 dwelling could be accommodated on the site, with the necessary planting, landscaping and open space...” (Paragraph 19)

In conclusion, in this case, the proposal for up to 39 dwellings in the AONB did not constitute “major development”.

Land north of Brylanes Close, Cuckfield, West Sussex (APP/D3830/A/10/2132146) – Inspector Decision Letter dated 28 April 2011:

This was an application for a residential development of 42 dwellings, access road and children’s play area. It is important to note that this decision was issued prior to the publication of the NPPF, however the decision is relevant for two reasons as the Inspector rejected the Council’s suggestions that the definition of major development for the purposes of PPS7 (Planning Policy Statement 7) should be the same as the definition used in the General Development Procedure Order (now the Development Management Procedure Order 2010) as “this was devised for administrative purposes in connection with the local publication of applications. In my view and despite its acceptance in appeal decision ref: APP/P12114/A/09/2100514, where its use was not in dispute, it is not appropriate for use in the circumstances of this appeal. PPS7 talks about major developments that raise issues of national significance. Although important locally, the appeal proposal is not of national significance.” (Paragraph 20)

For completeness, APP/P12114/A/09/2100514 referred to above was concerned with an application for creation of a cricket ground in an AONB and as such is considered of no relevance to the assessment of this application.

In summary, in the Cuckfield case, it was considered that the residential development of 42 dwellings in the AONB did not constitute “major development”.

Highfield Farm, Tetbury (APP/F1610/A/11/2165778) – SoS Decision Letter dated 13 February 2013: This was an outline application for the erection of 250 dwellings within the Cotswold AONB. An Inspector allowed the appeal and that decision was called in by the SoS who agreed that the proposed development would conflict with the Development Plan, however he considered that there were material considerations weighing in favour of the proposal, one of which being the ability to contribute to meeting the severe shortfall in market and affordable housing provision, as well as the main considerations weighing against the proposal being the reduction in the natural beauty of the AONB. Having weighed up all of the material considerations, the SoS agreed that the considerations in favour of the proposal outweighed the conflict with the Development Plan and the appeal was allowed.

The applicant has also referred the Council to an application determined by Ryedale District Council in April 2013. The site, known as Field No 4848, Station Road, Ampleforth, Helmsley, was subject to an application (reference no. 12/00618/MFUL) for the construction of 30 dwellings in the Howardian Hills AONB. The Ryedale DC Planning Committee, at its meeting on 12 March 2012, resolved to refuse the application. However, this decision was reconsidered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 9 April 2013 following receipt of Counsels Opinion which advised that the application did not amount to “major development” in an AONB. Whilst the Ryedale DC Planning Committee ultimately refused this application on other grounds, the Committee agenda states: “The Council Solicitor advised Members that the proposed development was not major development for the purposes of paragraph 116 of the NPPF and that this professional opinion was supported by the opinion of Queens Counsel which Members had seen”.

The applicant’s examples indicate that a development of up to 42 units within an AONB was not considered to be major development, whereas a development of up to 250 units did constitute major development within an AONB. There are no examples that are directly comparable in size to this current proposal. Cuckfield is the closest comparable example in terms of the size of the development; however Cuckfield is a large village in the Mid Sussex District of West Sussex. Its nearest town is Haywards Heath, which lies 2 miles to the southeast, and Cuckfield itself is designated as a Civil Parish which had a population of 3,266 persons in the 2001 census. Woolton Hill is not considered to be comparable to Cuckfield, being a rural village without the range of services available at, or in close proximity to Cuckfield. The nearest town to Woolton Hill is Newbury, which lies 6 miles to the north-east. Woolton Hill is within the Civil Parish of East Woodhay, which, as of the 2001 census had a population of 2,794 across the whole Parish.

In summary, the village of Woolton Hill itself is significantly smaller than Cuckfield and is not considered to be comparable. The proposed development at Woolton Hill is clearly larger than that considered in the Cuckfield case. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the proposed development of up to 49 residential units, together with provision of a new community facility, within Woolton Hill would constitute major development within the AONB witin this context, and therefore the three exceptions tests set out within Paragraph 116 of the NPPF should be applied in determining this application.

 Need for the Development

The NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to actively manage their housing land supply, for growth for 10 years and, where possible, for 15 years. This includes a requirement to demonstrate a five year supply of specific deliverable sites. In addition, the NPPF adds an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, Local Planning Authorities should increase the buffer to 20%. This latter requirement is not, however, considered to apply to the Borough given high levels of housing delivery in recent years.

The Borough Council’s 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR), which was reported to the Planning and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee (P&I OSCOM) in October 2012, set out the Borough Council’s 5 year housing land supply position for 1st April 2012 against three different housing targets. These included the South East Plan target of 945 dwellings per annum (dpa) and the locally derived housing target of 770 dpa, which was agreed by Cabinet in October 2012 as an appropriate interim figure for land supply purposes (a range of 730 to 770 dpa was agreed for future planning purposes, subject to further evidence). The 770 dpa figure equates to a five year housing requirement of 3,850 units over the period 2012/13 to 2016/17. The additional 5% buffer required by the NPPF leads to a further 193 units over the five year period, leading to an overall requirement of 4,043 units or 809 dpa. The completions over the next five years are predicted to reach 2,751 units. As such, the Borough Council can only demonstrate 3.4 years of supply against the current locally derived housing target. It should be noted that on 6 June 2013 Cabinet agreed a new locally derived housing figure of 748 units per annum based on the publication of new data and also the completion of further investigation and modelling. This change does not affect the Borough’s overall lack of a 5 year land supply.

The lack of a 5 year land supply is recognised in the October 2012 Committee Report to P&I OSCOM which states that “officers will need to continue to advise whether development should be permitted on greenfield sites in advance of them being formally allocated through the Local Plan process”. Whilst this site will not be allocated through the Local Plan process, it is clear that if this site were developed in the short term, it would positively contribute towards the five year land supply position.

In summary, in respect of need, given the Borough cannot demonstrate a sufficient supply of housing land to meet the housing requirements for the next 5 years, as required by the NPPF, it is considered that there is a need for the proposed housing development.

It should be noted that the applicant has submitted a Housing Requirements Report prepared by Pioneer Housing and Development Consultants in support of this application; however this report draws different findings and different conclusions than the Borough Council’s evidence base prepared to support the draft Local Plan, particularly with regard to land supply and housing requirements. In particular, the report suggests that an annual supply of 954 new homes would be appropriate for this Borough and concludes that the level of housing proposed by the Council (735 to 770) is too low and unlikely to provide for sufficient growth in the workforce. Given that the Council’s evidence base has been endorsed by Full Council, and is used to support the current consultation on the draft Local Plan, it is considered to be a robust evidence base on which to assess this planning application.

 Cost and Scope of developing elsewhere

Whilst there is a preference in planning terms for directing development towards previously developed land, rather than to greenfield sites, and particularly a preference to avoid development within an AONB where possible, there is presently no evidence available to demonstrate that an alternative site(s) would be available now to meet the current housing shortfall. As above, no material weight can be attached to the emerging Local Plan, and therefore the Council has no evidence that a suitable site would be available elsewhere.

Whilst planning permission has recently been granted on appeal for a development of up to 450 dwellings at the Marnel Park site in Basingstoke (BDB/75761 and BDB/75762 refer), this development would not in itself address the Boroughs current housing shortfall. In addition, an appeal has been lodged against the Council’s refusal of Kennel Farm (BDB/77382) however a decision on that appeal would not be made until early next year, and even if this appeal were to be allowed, there would still be a shortfall in housing.

As such, the Council cannot demonstrate the housing need could be met on a suitable site outside the AONB.

 Impact on the Landscape and scope for mitigation

It is considered that the proposed development, through the introduction of new built form together with the loss of an open field would not constitute the “conservation of landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB”. It is also considered that the proposal would result in some harm to the AONB in the vicinity of the application site, but that this would be a localised harm. Woolton Hill is a village covered by the AONB. The site itself is surrounded on three sides by existing residential development and a recent development has been allowed for 16 dwellings to the north-western corner of the site. This is an outline planning application, and through careful consideration of the layout of the site and the design of the development at reserved matters stage, it will be possible to secure a development that is in keeping with the character of Woolton Hill. Also, through a comprehensive landscaping scheme and management plan, the impact of this development can be, in part, mitigated. On balance, there will be an impact on the AONB through permitting this development; however the impact can be mitigated through good design such that the effects of the impact would not be significantly detrimental.

 Conclusion

There is a housing shortfall within the Borough, and the Borough is unable to demonstrate that a suitable site would be available to meet this shortfall. In the context of Paragraph 116, these amount to “exceptional circumstances” where permitting the proposed development of up to 49 units could reasonably be considered to meet the wider “public interest”, in the terms of the NPPF. There would be a localised impact on the AONB through permitting this development, however it is considered that this impact can be mitigated through design and landscaping, such that the character of Woolton Hill is not adversely affected. The presumption in favour of sustainable development at Paragraph 14 therefore still applies and the adverse impacts of the development must be weighed in the balance against the wider benefits, an assessment on these issues is made in the sections below and a conclusion drawn at the end of this report.

 Prematurity

The Planning System General Principles (2006) states that, in some circumstances, it may be justifiable to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity where a Development Plan Document (DPD) is being prepared or is under review but which has not yet been adopted. Applications for housing could be justifiably refused if the proposed development is so substantial or where the cumulative effect would be so significant that granting permission could prejudice the DPD by predetermining decisions about scale, location or phasing of new development which are being addressed in the DPD.

The proposed development would have an impact on only a small area of the Borough and is not considered to be so significant that it would prejudice the scale and location of development in the Local Plan, given that the proposal (for up to 49 units) would amount to just 1.7% of the 5 year housing land requirement and less than 0.6% of the overall 15 year requirement. Approving this application would not be premature in Officer’s view.

Community Facility provision

The Council’s Policy Team comment: “As the site lies outside of the Settlement Policy Boundary, Saved Policy D8 applies which states that as an exception to the general protection of the countryside adjacent to rural settlements, planning permission will be granted for development which the Council is satisfied will meet a genuine need. The applicant has not submitted any detailed supporting information to provide evidence of the need for a community use. Therefore this is contrary to Saved Policy D8.”

The Community Facilities Officer has requested that an off-site contribution towards the local community church hall project is sought through S106, advising that “We support the proposal to transfer land for D1/D2 uses to the parish council, but would have reservations about the parish councils aspiration to provide a new community building on the land, as we feel there is currently adequate community hall provision within an acceptable distance and that there is currently insufficient evidence and funding to support a scheme.”

The NPPF is supportive throughout in respect of delivering community facilities and services. Paragraph 70 in particular states that to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments. Paragraph 184 recognises that neighbourhood planning provides a powerful set of tools for local people to ensure that they get the right types of development for their community.

It is understood that this proposal came about as a direct result of the comments received through the applicant’s public consultation and community engagement. A public exhibition was held at East Woodhay Village Hall on 21st May 2013 and one of the questions asked was how the public would prefer the land to be transferred to the community if the development were approved. The results show a preference for a new GP Surgery, with allotments and a village hall being the second most preferred options. The other responses included open space/recreation use such as a children’s play area or a pre-school nursery. All such uses would be permissible under the D1 and D2 use class.

It is noted that there is no existing allotment provision within the East Woodhay Parish, and therefore no existing resident within Woolton Hill has access to allotments within the immediate vicinity of their property. There is an identified local need for the provision of allotments in Woolton Hill, which is evidenced in the East Woodhay Parish Plan. Page 27 of that document states “59% of residents were in favour of the provision of allotments, but first the Parish Council will need to provide a suitable site”. The standards set out in the Leisure Recreation Needs Assessment require allotments to be within 150 metres of the nearest bus stop and be capable of providing more than 10 allotment plots. These standards could be met on the site, and through the S106 legal agreement, a contribution is being secured for the provision of allotments within the Parish.

There is no evidence within the East Woodhay Parish Plan of a local need for alternative community facilities, however it is noted that at the time the Parish Plan was prepared, there was no realistic prospect of a facility being delivered locally in the absence of a suitable site. However, there is clearly a local need for allotments and the transfer of land to the community would provide a ‘suitable site’ required to facilitate such provision.

In conclusion, the proposal cannot be reconciled against Saved Policy D8 of the Local Plan, as there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a need for the proposed mix of D1/D2 uses on this site. In addition, other than for the provision of allotments, there will be no funding available for the provision of a community building on the site. Private funding may be sourced elsewhere however this will be a matter outside of the control of the Council. Notwithstanding that the proposed transfer of land could facilitate the provision of a considerable number of allotment plots to meet local need, if this is how the community wishes to see the land utilised, the transfer of this land to the community will enable the community to plan positively to deliver the social, recreations and cultural services it required to serve it. This approach is endorsed by Paragraph 70 of the NPPF, and enabled by the Neighbourhood Planning process.

Recognising that the planning system has an important role to play in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy and inclusive communities, the transfer of land as proposed by the applicant is supported by Officers. The transfer will be secured via a legal agreement. Planning conditions will be necessary to control the future use of the land, since come uses within the D2 use class in particular, such as a cinema, concert hall, swimming bath etc., would clearly not be acceptable in this location. The design and scale of any building and the final layout of the site will also need to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority to ensure an acceptable development in keeping with the character of the area.

Highway Assessment

In terms of the level of overall accessibility to the site, the site is regarded as unsustainable. Woolton Hill is not served by a rail station. There is an “on demand” bus service serving the village, operated by Cango, however this is an infrequent service and must be booked in advance. There is a bus service from Andover to Newbury that runs via Woolton Hill. The timetable would allow residents to commute into Newbury before 9am for employment, but the service does not start sufficiently early for commuting to Andover. Woolton Hill contains a village store, providing daily essentials, however the nearest larger supermarkets are in Newbury. There are primary schools within Woolton Hill, however no secondary school. It is therefore considered that any development within the village would be largely dependent upon a private motor vehicle hence why the site is considered unsustainable. The site is bounded to the north by Tile Barn Row which has an imposed speed limit of 30mph and no street lighting. Some of the modern, residential roads in the vicinity do have street lighting. Tile Barn Row is consistently level along its length. There is however no footway along the site frontage. There is a footway beginning at its junction with Greenways, some 250m to the west.

There is an access gate from the site onto Cutters Hill Road (also known locally as Broadlayings and marked as such on the submitted plans), which lies to the east and this connects with a footway on the north side of the road.

The application is made in outline; however details of the means of access are to be agreed at this stage. In this regard, the proposed site access arrangements include a new vehicle access onto Tile Barn Row; a pedestrian access to Cutters Hill Road and a separate pedestrian access to Tile Barn row to the north west of the site.

A Transport Assessment (TA) has been submitted and this provides information on surveyed traffic flow and speeds, estimated traffic generation, analysis of the highway network, traffic accidents and non-car use. The TA details that the existing weekday vehicle flows on Tile Barn Row are 352 vehicles northbound and 346 vehicles southbound. The TA also reveals that the average vehicle speed (corrected for wet weather) is 34.2mph northbound and 33.7mph southbound, which is in excess of the posted speed limit.

Traffic accident data have been analysed, and it is noted that a serious accident was recorded at the A343 junction probably caused by driver action. No severe accidents have been recorded on Tile Barn Row.

The TRICS database has been used to estimate trips per dwelling and for the proposed 49 dwellings, it is estimated that there would be an additional 28 vehicle trips on the network in the morning peak hour and 30 vehicle trips on the network in the evening peak hour. The Local Highway Authority advises that this would result in a modest increase of traffic onto the highway network of one extra vehicle every one to two minutes in the peak hours. It is however noted that Woolton Hill is an unsustainable location and therefore the actual trip rates for the development may be marginally higher, given that there is likely to be less use of bicycles and public transport in this area. No objection is raised to the impact of increased vehicle trips as the local highway network in the vicinity of the site has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increase.

A simple T-junction is proposed to provide vehicle access to and from the site to serve the proposed development. The Highway Officer has confirmed that the proposed design is suitable to accommodate the vehicle traffic arising from this development, however as there is a fall from Tile Barn Row into the site; details of gradients shall be required. Therefore, conditions are recommended to control the detailed design of the vehicle access.

The proposed visibility splays at the new vehicle access are calculated at 52m which are correctly calculated from measured traffic speeds. A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit has been undertaken and has not identified any safety problems in connection with the applicants submitted access proposals or Transport Assessment. As such, there is no objection to the proposed vehicle access.

In terms of the pedestrian accesses, the Highway Officer advises that details including construction and visibility splays shall be required and these can be secured via condition; however there is no objection to the proposed location of the pedestrian access points.

Hampshire County Council (HCC) has commented that the submitted TA has identified an existing speeding issue on Tile Barn Row, in that the average vehicle speed is in excess of the posted speed limit. HCC have therefore advised that it will be necessary to consider and assess this matter further. Depending upon the outcomes of HCC’s assessment, it may be that traffic calming measures on the highway would be necessary.

In addition, HCC has commented that there is currently no footpath along Tile Barn Row connecting the application with existing developments in Woolton Hill. HCC have therefore requested that the applicant make provision for a footpath as part of this development. This is considered vitally important given that this application proposes a community use as part of the development. Therefore access to the proposal from the existing residential areas within Woolton Hill is crucial.

The indicative site plan proposes a footpath through the site, from the proposed pedestrian access onto Cutters Hill Road, to the proposed pedestrian access on Tile Barn Road. Whilst the provision of the footpath through the site is encouraged, HCC have stated that a footpath along Tile Barn Road, connecting to Greenways and Cutters Hill Road, would be preferable. The applicant has prepared an illustrative plan to demonstrate that there would be space for a path to be provided along the existing grass verge along the southern side of Tile Barn Row. A no-dig method of construction would be necessary to minimise any impact on the Root Protection Areas of protected trees, and therefore it is likely that a public footpath, as requested by HCC could be provided.

The applicant has demonstrated the options available for pedestrian access to the proposed development, and will make a BEST contribution secured via a S106 legal agreement, which will fund the provision of a footpath. This money will then enable HCC to determine, in conjunction with the Parish Council, the final details of the scheme to be considered and agreed and for the footpath to be provided prior to occupation of the development.

The site is situated within the ‘rural’ zone for the purposes of assessing the provision of residential motor vehicle, secure cycle parking provision, and refuse/recycling facilities. This is an outline application and therefore details of the parking provision are not known at this stage, however it would be expected that all parking demand would be accommodated within the site and that the provision is in accordance with the Residential Parking Standards SPD. Secure cycle parking will also need to accord with the adopted standards, and again it is expected that adequate provision in accordance with these standards could be made within the development, either within a garage serving a dwelling or within a purpose built store within the garden. Similarly, provision for refuse and recycling facilities would be made within the curtilage of each property and would need to accord with the adopted standards.

In summary, the proposed development would provide safe and suitable vehicle access to the site, and the additional traffic arising from this development could be accommodated on site without detriment to the local highway network. A contribution towards BEST will be secured via the S106 agreement, to secure enhancements to pedestrian, cycle and highway infrastructure in the vicinity of the site. This will include providing a suitable footway to serve the proposed development, connecting to the existing residential areas, and investigating and if necessary providing traffic calming along Tile Barn Row. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to accord with Saved Policies E1, A1 and A2 of the Local Plan and the NPPF.

Impact on Landscape Character and Visual Amenity

The site is located in the far north west of the Borough and lies within the North Wessex Downs AONB, which is afforded the highest status of protection from development as recognised by Paragraph 115 of the NPPF. Paragraph 115 states: “Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.”

As set out above, Paragraph 116 states that planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. However, there is no definition within the NPPF as to what constitutes major development. Taking into consideration the character of the site, the size of the development and the local context, the Local Planning Authority are of the opinion that the proposed development is considered to be a major development. The three tests as set out under Paragraph 116 have been considered above, however this section focuses upon the impact of the development upon the environment and landscape and the extent to which this can be moderated.

 Existing Landscape Character The site is found within the and Burghclere Landscape Character Area, as identified in the Borough’s Landscape Assessment SPG. This area generally has a quiet, rural character and is located away from larger residential areas. There is some noise and visual intrusion from the A34 and A343. The area has a high percentage of woodland cover, particularly close to Penwood and Highclere, where extensive coniferous plantation encloses and contains views. There is low intervisibility across the area, with vegetation and the low-lying nature of the landscape containing views.

Woolton Hill is one of the numerous scattered villages within the area; however the village has been subject to recent residential development and has a relatively high local population which results in a more suburbanised character than other villages within the East Woodhay Parish.

The application site is a small scale field enclosed by an intact hedgerow structure. The local housing vernacular is a mixture of ages and styles. The area does have a spacious character with dwellings being located along narrow and winding lanes and roads. Dwellings are generally large and detached, set in generous gardens to the front and rear with mature vegetation along the boundaries.

 Existing Visual Amenity

There are no Public Rights of Way (PROW) in the immediate vicinity of the site however there are glimpsed public views of the site through existing trees and other vegetation from Tile Barn Row, which is a narrow country lane. Views into the site from the northern end of Greenways are also possible. Tile Barn Row has an open, spacious and rural feel along the section of the land running parallel to the site due to the presence of the managed parkland and equestrian land on the northern side of the lane.

There are clear views through to the site from the gaps in between the trees and vegetation along the northern boundary. These views from Tile Barn Row looking south east and south west are towards a large and unspoilt area of green open space with mature trees along the south eastern boundary. Existing housing along the north eastern boundary is however evident in these views, and the recent development at the Linden Homes site is prominent from the lane. There are also extensive private views into the site from the rear gardens of properties that surround the wider area of scrubland.

 Impact on landscape character

The Local Plan Inspector’s report from 2005, which comments on the Harwood Paddock site states at Paragraph 1.46.2:

“This site was the subject of an objection at the last Development Plan Inquiry some 10 years ago. The proposal then was for 60 houses. My colleague concluded then that the village contained only limited community services, did not have the potential to be adequately served by public transport and should therefore be regarded as an unsustainable location for development. He went on to conclude that development of this site would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape. Also that the loss of a valuable visual break in the built fabric of the village would be compensated for by the screening of rear gardens that would be provided by the new development. However, in his judgement, these matters were outweighed by the village’s fundamental unsustainability. On these visual issues I find no reason to take a different view to my colleague, but there have been changes in the level of services.”

The application site is generally well contained and therefore it is considered that this proposal, whilst changing the character of the site from that of an open field, would not have a significantly adverse impact on the wider surrounding AONB. It is considered that any impact would be localised. The Landscape Officer comments that although there would be harm to the landscape character of the site, as the proposed development introduces built form into a site that is currently devoid of built form, this could be suitably mitigated against by creating a high quality scheme that knits into the existing built fabric of Woolton Hill. The Landscape Officer considers that such a scheme should maintain the spacious and semi-rural character of Woolton Hill, thereby incorporating a high proportion of large, detached dwellings, set in generous gardens with mature vegetation along the boundaries.

The site is sloping in nature and some concern was raised regarding the potential for terracing and retaining walls to accommodate this development. These are not a feature found on the site or in the immediate vicinity and are unlikely to be supported as this could potentially urbanise the site adversely. Therefore, the applicant was requested to submit additional information during consideration of this application, which included cross sections of the development and indicative streetscenes. This information demonstrates that some cutting and filling will be necessary as well as some terracing due to the topography of the site, however the illustrative plans are considered to demonstrate that the proposed development could be accommodated within the site in such a way so as to respect the existing character of Woolton Hill. Therefore, it is considered that the impact of this development could be minimised through careful design at reserved matters stage.

There are no specific concerns regarding the proposed location of the community use, which would be in the north east corner of the site. Through careful on site layout and design, a community use could be accommodated on site without detriment and without harm to the character of the area.

The access point is considered to be acceptable, as all existing trees on the site are being retained.

 Impact on visual amenity

The Landscape Officer considers that the visual impact of the development would be moderate. Clearly the development will be visible, and the open character of the site would be lost. However as the site is well contained, and bounded on three sides by existing residential development, it is considered that this impact would not be adverse.

Furthermore, it is clear that through careful design, such as maintaining a spacious character to the development with gaps between buildings, together with a robust landscape strategy for the site, that the visual impact of the development could be mitigated.

It should also be noted that Natural England has raised no objection to this application, stating that due to the nature and location of the proposals this development is unlikely to adversely affect the purpose of the North Wessex Downs AONB designation. Natural England also welcomes the retention of existing trees within the site, and recommends that planting along the boundaries is strengthened in order to filter views of the development from the surrounding area.

 Density

The applicant proposes a net developable area of 2.3 ha which equates to a housing density of approximately 22 dwellings per hectare (dph). This density calculation does not include open space, clearly if open space were included, the density would be reduced.

The proposed density of development at 22dph would result in a development typically comprising a large proportion of detached houses with some semi-detached and terraced housing to provide smaller units. Given that a similar density of development is found in the surrounding area, it is considered that the site has capacity to accommodate up to 49 dwellings.

 Illustrative Masterplan

Whilst there is no objection to the principle of the proposed development, there are concerns regarding the indicative layout that has been submitted. Whilst Officers are satisfied that up to 49 dwellings, together with a community facility, could be accommodated within the site without detriment to the character of the area, revisions to the indicative layout would be necessary prior to submission and acceptance of a reserved matters scheme.

The Illustrative Masterplan contains a number of features which demonstrate that the site would have capacity to accommodate 49 dwellings and the proposed community facility. These features include: front gardens of a moderate depth and spacing of several metres between houses which will help to create a more rural or suburban streetscene in keeping with the surrounding area; a large proportion of detached dwellings; and slightly curving roads which reflect the street pattern of the surrounding area. The location of an open space and the community facility will create an open area, enabling deep views into the site from Tile Barn Row which helps the creation of a less dense character.

Both the Urban Design and Landscape Officer’s consider that some of the units indicated along the southern boundary may be too close to the trees along this boundary. There is also concern that the dwellings indicated within the south west corner of the site could result in an overly urban and cramped appearance, due to their bulk and large footprint. Therefore careful consideration should be paid to designing a layout that maintains both a spacious character that allows sufficient space for landscaping, whilst still maintaining sufficient separation from existing mature trees to avoid shading issues, which could put future pressure on these important trees. Additionally, careful consideration needs to be given to the design and layout of the south western part of the site to ensure sufficient usable amenity space is provided for all proposed dwellings. However, given the modest density of the site, it is considered that these matters could be resolved through the detailed design and layout stage under the reserved matters process.

 Open Space

Given the distances to existing green space and the fact that the existing facilities would not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional number of residents resulting from this development, all green space required to meet the Green Space Standards must be provided on- site.

The total quantity of green space required for the proposed housing development is 4656sqm. This would need to be multi-functional green space including:

 space suitable for one kickabout area (minimum 1600sq.m. plus 10m buffer to housing);  accessible natural green space; and  space for relaxation and informal recreation including seating, footpaths and landscaped areas.

The applicant has demonstrated that the overall quantity of open space proposed would be in excess of the adopted Green Space Standards, however the Open Spaces Officer has raised an objection, stating that there is not one space sufficient in size and therefore capable of accommodating a kickabout of a minimum of 1600sqm, with a rectangular level grass area with 10m buffer to housing. In the view of the Open Spaces Officer, in order to deliver an acceptable scheme in open space terms there would be an impact on the proposed housing numbers and /or size of units. An objection is therefore raised on this basis.

The applicant has confirmed that increasing the size of the kickabout area to 1600 sqm, would result in the loss of two plots which are adjacent to the space as currently shown on the indicative masterplan.

It is clear that a balance needs to be struck between providing a good quality development, and according with an adopted standard. In this case, there would be a shortfall of 400sqm of kickabout provision if a scheme of 49 units came forward at reserved matters stage along the lines of that shown on the indicative masterplan. It could therefore be argued that this shortfall would not meet the needs of future residents of the development, since it did not accord with the adopted standards. However, it could also be argued that this is a less dense development than that proposed under 13/00897/OUT, which proposes an additional 18 dwellings, but only a marginally larger area of kickabout space on site. In addition, this shortfall in kickabout provision should be balanced against the wider benefits of the scheme, and in this regard this application proposes 0.243 ha of community land, which could be used in a variety of ways as determined by the local community.

Therefore, on balance, whilst this outline application, if developed along the lines of the illustrative masterplan, would not provide a 1600m² of kickabout space, this would not result in a significant adverse impact on the amenity of future residents given the recognised wider benefits of the scheme. It is also borne in mind that this is an outline application, where the layout of site is reserved for assessment at a later stage. Therefore, it may be entirely possible for a 1600m² kickabout to be provided one the detailed design is considered.

The attenuation areas will need to be accessible to residents to provide accessible natural greenspace, and this can be secured through the detailed design stage.

It is considered acceptable for equipped play to be secured through an off-site contribution. This scheme includes on-site toddler play provision, which is considered acceptable. The Open Spaces Officer also advises that natural play features such as logs, mounds, tree swings could be located within the landscaped areas.

 Conclusion

It is considered that the site has capacity to accommodate up to 49 dwellings and a community centre without detriment to the landscape character and visual amenity of the area. The proposed density is considered acceptable and would be comparable with the immediate area. There are some concerns regarding the illustrative layout, however as layout is a reserved matter, these concerns can be resolved through the detailed design stage. The shortfall in kickabout provision as currently indicated is noted, but this is not considered to lead to a significantly adverse impact on the amenity of future residents given the wider benefits brought about by this development and the increased provision of community land within the locality. In summary, development on this site would provide an opportunity to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment that would bring benefits for the local community. As such, it is appropriate to secure a Landscape Management Plan for the site as part of the S106 agreement. Further, given the above conclusions, it is considered that the principle of development is acceptable and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Local Plan and the NPPF.

Affordable Housing

An appropriate level of affordable housing should be provided as part of the development, with the starting point for negotiations being 40%, of which, 25% should be social rented units and 15% should be shared ownership units, as identified in Saved Policy C2 of the Local Plan and the Affordable Housing SPD.

The application proposes 49 units, and therefore an on-site provision of 19.6 units would be required to comply with this policy.

Housing Services have been consulted on this application and have confirmed that the housing needs in the East Woodhay Parish, within which the site is located, are as follows:

East Woodhay inc Woolton Hill

General Needs Transfers

Band 1 Band 2 Band 3 Band 4 Total Band 1 Band 2 Band 3 Band 4 Total One Bedroom Flat 3 3 One Bedroom Flat 2 2 Two Bedroom Flat 1 1 Two Bedroom Flat 0 One Bedroom Bungalow 0 One Bedroom Bungalow 0 Two Bedroom Bungalow 0 Two Bedroom Bungalow 0 Two Bedroom House 1 6 7 Two Bedroom House 1 1 Three Bedroom House 0 Three Bedroom House 0 Four Bedroom House 0 Four Bedroom House 0 Five Bedroom House 0 Five Bedroom House 0 Sheltered 0 Sheltered 0 Total 0 0 1 10 11 Total 0 0 0 3 3

Housing Services have commented as follows: “Radian Housing Association has confirmed as Homebuy Agent (coordinating shared ownership in the District) that they have 8 households identified with a need in East Woodhay. It is not clear whether the 8 potential shared owners are counted within the 11 on the register however it is possible to deduce an important but limited need within the Parish.”

There is a new supply of 6 units coming forward on the Linden Homes scheme in Woolton Hill, which is a recently completed development on 16 units to the north-west of this application site.

Given the limited need for affordable housing within the Parish, the applicants propose to reduce the on-site provision to 7 units (4 for rent and 3 for shared ownership), and to make up the balance (equivalent to 12.6 units) through an off-site contribution. This would mean that an affordable housing contribution of 40% of the development is made by the applicant, however this would be made up from a mix of on-site provision and an off- site financial contribution. The off-site contribution, secured via a S106 agreement, would be spent in the rural areas of the Borough, potentially covering a wider than the East Woodhay Parish. The applicant also proposes that of the 40%, 20% would be provided as rented units, and 20% would be provided as shared ownership units.

The Housing Services Team comment: “On the basis of the sites isolated location in relation to the towns and service centres of the Borough the Housing Service accepted this argument and therefore 7 units will be provided on-site and a contribution in lieu of 12.6 units provided as a financial contribution. Equally the 50/50 split of rent and shared ownership was accepted on the same basis.” As such, Housing Services accept the applicant’s proposals in this instance.

It is noted that Paragraph 8.1 of the Affordable Housing SPD states that “…the Council will negotiate the provision of an element of affordable housing on all housing sites above the identified threshold taking into account the specific circumstances of each site”. Paragraph 9.1 states that “The precise amount, type, size and standard of affordable housing will be subject to negotiation with the developer and will be dependent upon the housing need at the time of the planning application, based on a consideration of the Housing Register, Housing Needs and Market assessments, and Rural Housing surveys.” In relation to on or off site provision, Paragraph 13.1 of the SPD states: “The Council considers that where a requirement for affordable housing is considered appropriate, it should be provided on-site as part of the development. However, there may be exceptional circumstances that would justify a financial or other contribution towards the provision of the required element of affordable housing on another site in the Borough.”

In this case, the information available demonstrates that within the East Woodhay Parish, there is not a need for 19.6 units on the application site. However there is a need for affordable housing within the wider rural community. Therefore, the applicant’s proposals will meet the immediate need for affordable housing within the parish of East Woodhay, through providing 7 units on site. The wider need is met through the off-site contribution and this approach is considered acceptable in this instance and in accordance with the Affordable Housing SPD.

An off-site contribution of £310,500 would be secured via a S106 agreement. This quantum has been negotiated on the basis of a formula developed from a Viability Study undertaken for the Council by consultants Adams Integra Ltd in 2010 and most recently used on a scheme at Four Oaks, Harts Lane, Burghclere (application reference BDB/77464). Housing Services accept this approach and the contribution offered in this instance.

In summary, the application seeks to provide 40% affordable housing, made up of an on and off site contribution. This approach is considered acceptable, given the specific circumstances in this case. The contribution and on-site provision would meet the rural housing need and accordingly the proposal would comply with the requirements of Saved Policy C2 of the Local Plan and the Affordable Housing SPD.

Housing Mix

Saved Policy C3 of the Local Plan states that 30-50% of market dwellings should be of 1 or 2 bedrooms with the highest proportion being sought on sites on or adjoining the centres of settlements including Basingstoke with a good or a reasonable range of services and public transport opportunities. Paragraph 7.3 of the Housing Mix and Lifetime Homes SPD outlines the percentage threshold for smaller market dwellings depending on the specific location of the site, and therefore, with regard to development in Woolton Hill, 30-35% of market dwellings should be small units. This would equate to a minimum of 13 units on this development having 2 bedrooms or fewer. The supporting text of Saved Policy C3 goes on to state that the Council will aim to achieve a standard of 80% of small dwellings on any development having a gross floor area of no more than 70sqm.

The applicant envisages that 5% of the properties would be small units. This falls below the 30% required by Saved Policy C3 of the Local Plan and as such, the Planning Policy Team has advised that the proposal is contrary to Saved Policy C3.

Paragraph 7.3 of the Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards SPD recognises that: “there may be exceptions where a higher or lower proportion would be appropriate as a result of detailed design considerations, the physical characteristics of the site, the character of the area or local housing need and existing provision. However, the starting point will always be for a range of units and sufficient evidence will need to be provided if this is not to be followed on an individual site.”

The Planning Policy Officer is therefore right to raise an objection, since the proposal is contrary to Saved Policy C3. It is however for the case officer, and in turn the Members of the Development Control Committee, to take a balanced view on whether the proposed housing mix is, in this instance, acceptable.

The applicant cites the housing requirements evidence base as including the 2007 Central Hampshire and New Forest Strategic Housing Market Assessment, a 2010 Basingstoke and Deane Rural Housing Assessment (HMA), together with an updated draft of this document which was presented to Members of the P&I OSCOM 5 June 2013. Broadly, these documents do not define a market housing size or mix requirement, noting that housing mix is effectively market led. The HMA in particular suggests avoiding placing constraints on developers that will prevent housing delivery.

The applicant also cites the semi-rural character of the locality and the ‘village’ context within which the development is located. In particular, the applicant states that the “provision of additional smaller units could result in a higher density form of development that is unlikely to be acceptable to the Council. The location of the site and its context suggests a lower density scheme would be more appropriate. Achieving the housing mix required by saved Local Plan policy C3, as evidenced by the adjoining Linden scheme, is likely to result in a more cramped form of development.”

Paragraph 50 of the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to deliver a wide choice of homes and to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. However the NPPF does not define a percentage figure that must be met in order to achieve this. The Borough is required to plan for a mix of housing, based upon current and future demographics and market trends and should identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations to meet local demand. However at present, there is no evidence available for this specific area with regards to housing mix and whether the number of existing smaller properties is sufficient.

Of note is that East Woodhay Parish Council’s consultation response includes the results of a Parish Poll. It is noted that 72% of those that responded to the poll felt that there were currently sufficient smaller properties available to meet local needs. It is also clear from the local engagement to date that, notwithstanding the objection to the principle of this development, if a development were to go ahead, it should be a lower density form of development.

In conclusion, Paragraph 7.3 of the Housing Mix SPD and Paragraph 50 of the NPPF enable a more flexible approach to be taken with regards to housing mix, than Saved Policy C3. It is considered that given the particular character of Woolton Hill and the need to ensure a high quality development that respects the immediate context, that in this case, a provision of 5% small units within the scheme would be acceptable. Whilst noting that this is not compliant with Saved Policy C3, it is considered that this balanced approach is supported under the NPPF.

The applicant has confirmed that 15% of the development will be constructed to Lifetime Mobility Standards in accordance with the policy requirements and this is accepted by the Council’s Policy Team and can be secured via a planning condition.

Impact on Amenity

The indicative masterplan demonstrates that up to 49 dwellings could be accommodated on site without causing adverse harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties by way of overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impacts. The window to window and window to boundary relationships between proposed and existing dwellings would accord with the requirements of the Residential Amenity SPD such that there would be sufficient separation between properties to ensure that privacy is retained.

It is clear that the outlook from the existing properties bounding this site would change as a result of this proposal; however there is no requirement in planning terms to maintain the status quo. In this instance, the illustrative masterplan and indicative streetscenes demonstrate that an appropriate development could be accommodated within this site, maintaining adequate separation between developments and providing a robust planting scheme.

In relation to the proposed community use, the submitted information indicates that a building of upto 500 sqm together with parking could be accommodated within the community land. There are no proposed plans of the building as yet, given the outline nature of this application, however officers are satisfied that the site could accommodate such a building, together with associated parking, without adverse impact on neighbouring amenity. The future use of the land and any building would also be controlled by planning condition, giving a local resident and nearby neighbour the opportunity to consider and comment on any detailed plan for the site at a later reserved matters stage. Planning conditions can also be used to control the hours of use of any building, to ensure that amenities of neighbours are maintained.

It is therefore considered that the proposed development would respect the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Local Plan.

Impact on the Natural Environment

 Archaeology

A Heritage Statement has been submitted with the application which addresses archaeological issues and the County Archaeologist concurs with these conclusions. The site appears to have a low archaeological potential and the Heritage Statement concludes that no over-riding archaeological constraint is likely to exist. The County Archaeologist comments that “Whilst it is rarely possible to be confident archaeological remains do not exist on a site in this case the potential for archaeological remains is low and does not in my opinion reasonably justify the burden of an archaeological condition”. On that basis, no archaeological issues are raised.

 Biodiversity

The application site is not located within, adjacent to or in close proximity to any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) or Ramsar Site.

European Protected Species surveys, specifically for bats, dormice and great crested newts, have been undertaken in support of this application. An Extended Phase 1 habitat survey of the site has been undertaken. The results of the surveys identified an area of marshy grassland within the north east corner of the site and identified the trees along Tile Barn Row as being important for bat activity. If outline approval is granted, it will be necessary that the detailed layout retains the area of marshy grassland, which is currently shown to be retained on the illustrative masterplan

Bats are known to use parts of the site and in particular the line of trees along Tile Barn Row. It will be important therefore to ensure enough of a buffer is left between the development and these trees to allow bats to continue to use this linear feature. However no potential roosts are planned to be removed and an adequate buffer zone can be secured at the detailed design stage. Toads were recorded on site but the submitted survey fails to mention this species despite the species being a Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act Section 41 protected species. However, the Council’s Biodiversity Officer has recommended a condition to include a habitat enhancement scheme which will include the recommendations given in the submitted report (i.e. enhancing the attenuation features by way of creating ponds) should enhance the area for this species.

In summary, Natural England does not object to the proposed development and the Council’s Biodiversity Officer concludes that the proposal is unlikely to affect a protected species.

This application provides opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. In accordance with Paragraph 118 of the NPPF, such biodiversity enhancements can be secured via planning condition requiring a habitat enhancement scheme.

In summary, the proposed development is considered to comply with the provisions of Section 11 of the NPPF in that it will promote the conservation of biodiversity and lead to an enhancement of the local area through the use of planning conditions.

 Trees

The principal trees are located along Tile Barn Road and the south east boundary with Longmead/Greenlands. Tree Preservation Order BDB99A applies to trees T34, T35, T36, T38 to T45 (shown on the submitted tree survey) together with the holly and sycamore within G47 on the Tile Barn Road boundary. Tree Preservation Order BDB63 applies to several beech and sycamore trees on the rear boundaries of 10 to 13 Longmead, T18 to T26 on the tree survey and group G2 of the TPO. There are also some further protected trees around the boundaries of 14 and 15 Longmead, T27 to G31 on the tree survey and group G4 of the TPO. The remaining trees in the tree survey are not protected. There are no trees of any significance within the main body of the site.

The Council’s Tree Officer advises that development on this site is feasible in arboricultural terms and the illustrative layout indicates that development can be accommodated outside the Root Protection Areas (RPA) of the boundary trees.

At detailed design stage, careful consideration will need to be given to the relationship of a proposed building and retained tree, taking into account the size and orientation of the tree, the proposed use of the building, levels etc. Consideration will also need to be given to shading of gardens in the afternoon/evening. It is noted that the illustrative layout does shown that some units would be in close proximity to existing protected trees, and therefore may need to be realigned. However this is a matter to be addressed at detailed stage.

It is proposed to take the access onto Tile Barn Road through an existing natural gap which will help mitigate any impact on the adjacent trees. Therefore, the Tree Office raises no objection to the outline application, recognising that opportunity will be present at the detailed phase to agree an acceptable layout and landscape planting scheme to enhance the character of the site. The proposal therefore accords with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Local Plan.

 Land Contamination

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection to the application, noting that the risk from contamination to future site users has been adequately assessed through the applicant’s submitted reports. However as additional subsoil/topsoil may need to be imported onto the site at some stage to form soft landscaping areas, a condition is recommended to ensure that this material is subject to chemical testing before it is brought to site and once in-situ to ensure that it is suitable for use.

Flood Risk and Drainage The proposed development is located in Flood Zone 1 (low probability) based on the Environment Agency’s Flood Zone map. Paragraph 103 of the NPPF requires that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) should be submitted for all developments over one hectare in size. An FRA has therefore been submitted in support of this application.

Given the size of the development, the Environment Agency do not provide a specific comment on the application, and instead refer the Authority to their Standing Advice in respect of Surface Water Flooding, which states that surface water runoff should not increase flood risk to the development or third parties and encourages the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to attenuate to at least pre-development runoff rates and volumes or where possible achieving betterment in the surface water runoff regime. In addition, an allowance for climate change needs to be incorporated, which means adding an extra amount to peak rainfall (30% for residential) and the residual risk of flooding needs to be addressed should any drainage features fail or if they are subjected to an extreme flood event.

The applicant has submitted a FRA which concludes that the proposed development would not increase flood risk elsewhere. In addition, the application proposes the use of attenuation ponds to provide SuDS to serve the development. Features such as permeable surfacing can also be secured at detailed design stage to minimise and control surface water run off.

In respect of drainage, the submitted drainage assessment concludes that the proposed on site drainage system would be suitable to attenuate water flows to the 1 in a 100 year flooding event and includes the additional 30% rainfall storage as required by the Environment Agency. As such, the applicant has demonstrated that surface water drainage can be managed as part of the development without adverse impact.

In conclusion, Officers consider that the proposal would avoid the risk of flooding and would incorporate adequate drainage systems to avoid surface water flooding. The development would therefore accord with the NPPF in this regard.

Code for Sustainable Homes

Planning has a key role to play in shaping places, providing resilience to the impacts of climate change and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon technology to promote sustainable development. Appendix 5 of the Design and Sustainability SPD is a material planning consideration and supplements the requirements under Saved Policy E1 of the Local Plan. This requires residential developments to achieve at least a Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes in terms of design construction, energy and water efficiency.

The applicant has provided no indication that the development would achieve a Code Level 3, however given this is an outline proposal; this is a matter that can be secured by condition and controlled at reserved matters stage.

The applicant has however indicated within the Sustainability Statement that the dwellings will be constructed using a “fabric first” approach that will deliver a long term reduction in energy costs for the future occupants. Fabric first means that the dwellings would be designed to be well-insulated, energy efficient buildings in accordance with the 2006 Zero Carbon Homes Policy, and in accordance with Part L of the 2010 Building Regulations. It is therefore likely that Code Level 3 could be achieved for this development.

In summary, the applicant proposes an energy efficient development that would accord with national planning objectives, however a planning condition is recommended to ensure the proposal meets the minimum Code Level 3 rating, which will be assessed at the design stage and post construction. As such it is considered that the proposal will accord with the NPPF, Saved Policy E1 of the Local Plan and Appendix 5 'Design and Construction' of the Council's Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document.

Local Infrastructure and Community Facilities The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations enable Local Authorities to raise funds from developments to provide, maintain and enhance community infrastructure within the vicinity of a development. Whilst Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council has not yet developed a levy, contributions may still be secured via S106. Any contribution sought must comply with the tests set out in the CIL regulations which are:

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Saved Policy C1 of the Local Plan and the S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure SPG set out the Council’s approach to the provision of infrastructure and community facilities needed as a result of development.

The various on-site facilities and off-site contributions negotiated by Officers are set out on the scoping Proforma and Officers are satisfied that these contributions meet the tests of the CIL Regulations. In summary, the following contributions would be sought:

 Art

Given the scale of the scheme, there is potential to include artwork on site as part of the development. The Council will liaise with the developer to secure appropriate provision.

 BEST

As set out above, a contribution would be secured to provide local transport improvements within the vicinity of the site to promote travel by sustainable modes and improvements to mitigate against the cumulative impact of this development in accordance with HCC Transport Contributions Policy guidelines.

 Community Facilities

Additional residents would place increased pressure on existing community facilities and therefore a contribution would be secured towards improving existing community facilities at Woolton Hill Church Hall.

 Education

This development is within the catchment areas of St Thomas Infant and Woolton Hill Junior schools and The Clere Secondary School. The Infant and Junior Schools are full, whereas there are spaces at The Clere School.

The proposed development would necessitate an education contribution, in line with the County Council’s Policy - Developers’ Contributions towards Children’s Services Facilities December 2011 towards enhancing existing education facilities at these schools.

 Playing fields

A contribution towards improving recreation provision at either the Heath End Recreation Ground, Woolton Hill Tennis Courts or other recreation provision within the locality of the development would be sought to off-set the impact placed on these facilities by additional residents accommodated through this development.

 Play areas

A contribution towards an enhancement of the Local Equipped Area of Play at the Church Lane playground will be secured to off-set the impact of additional residents using this facility.

 Allotments Allotment provision in this area would be managed by East Woodhay Parish Council, however there is currently no such provision in the Parish. A contribution towards the provision of allotments within the Parish is considered necessary to off-set the additional demand for such facilities arising from this development.

The developer has confirmed agreement to the level of contributions being sought, and these will be secured via the S106 agreement, which is in the process of being drafted. The S106 will also secure the affordable housing, landscape management, and on site open space provision. Subject to completion of the S106, the proposed development would accord with adopted policies and guidance, subject to the completion of the S106 agreement.

Consultation Comments

The concerns of local objectors to this application are noted, and have been taken into account in determining this application. The majority of the objections raised are dealt with in the report above. Some comments, such as impact on existing property values, and the littering of contractors connected with the Linden Homes development, are not material planning considerations.

Whilst the construction of this development would inevitably cause some disruption to local residents, planning conditions can be used to control the hours of work and deliveries to keep the interruption to a minimum.

Conclusion

It is noted that concern has been raised that there is not a need for the proposed development within Woolton Hill. There is no requirement within the NPPF to consider whether any one given village, parish or town has a need for proposed housing, since the test of need relates to the administrative area of the Borough as a whole. In this instance, the Borough cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land and therefore the current Local Plan policies in relation to housing development are not considered to be up-to-date. Whilst the Council has prepared emerging planning policies to guide future housing developments, material weight cannot be attached to this draft document given its early stage of preparation.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development is therefore applied which means that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, or where specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.

Gven the current shortfall in deliverable housing sites, a 5 year land supply position cannot be demonstrated; the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out within the NPPF is therefore applied. The site is within the AONB and the scale of the proposed development would constitute major development and therefore the NPPF indicates that development can be restricted, in this case, it is considered that there is a demonstrable need for this development to support the Boroughs Housing need. Whilst the development would have an impact on the AONB, this impact would be localised and adverse harm can be avoided through a well designed scheme that can be secured at reserved matters stage. This application demonstrates that a sensitive development could be accommodated on this site without adverse harm, and therefore the tests of Paragraph 116 of the NPPF are considered to be met.

This site will deliver a housing development to contribute towards an existing shortfall and this would constitute a clear benefit of the scheme. In addition, the provision of additional housing development within Woolton Hill will assist in supporting and sustaining the existing community services such as the local shop, schools and health care facilities which would be of wider benefit to the community as a whole. The provision of land for a flexible use, to be determined by the local community through neighbourhood planning is consistent with Government Policy and the NPPF. Such provision is a clear benefit of this scheme. Whilst it is acknowledged that there will be impacts of permitting this development, for the reasoning set out within this report it is considered that the impacts would not be so significant so as to outweigh the benefits, and therefore, on balance, it would be appropriate to support the principle of permitting development on this site in advance of the adoption of the emerging Local Plan, in accordance with the NPPF.

Conditions

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:

Drawing no. 1000 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. SK-002B received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. EDP1923/02 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. EDP1923/03 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. EDP1923/16 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. EDP1923/22 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. 14363-05 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. 14363-06 received 21 June 2013 Drawing no. SK-006 received 14 August 2013 GRM Development Solutions Site Appraisal Report, dated April 2013 GRM Development Solutions Gas Monitoring Letter Report, dated June 2013

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is later. REASON: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

3 Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this planning permission. REASON: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

4 Approval of the details of the layout, scale, external appearance of the proposed buildings, and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. REASON: In order to secure a satisfactory development and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

5 Applications for the approval of reserved matters shall be in accordance with the principles described and illustrated in the "Design and Access Statement" dated June 2013 and the Illustrative Masterplan (Drawing no. SK-002B dated May 2013)) with regard to the general areas of development, including approximate floor areas and storey heights. REASON: To ensure an appropriate co-ordinated high quality form of development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

6 80% of small dwellings (i.e. a dwelling with no more than 2 bedrooms) shall have a gross floor area of no more than 70m². In addition, 15% or more of the market dwellings shall be built to Lifetime Mobility Standards unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To comply with Saved Policy C3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan and the Council's adopted Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards Supplementary Planning Guidance. 7 No works shall take place on site until a measured survey of the site has been undertaken and a plan prepared to a scale of not less than 1:500 showing details of existing and intended final ground levels and finished floor levels in relation to a nearby datum point which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To preserve the landscape character and visual amenity of the area and to protect the privacy of the occupiers of adjoining properties in accordance Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

8 No development shall commence on site until a material schedule detailing the types and colours of external materials to be used, including colour of mortar, together with samples, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

9 No development shall commence until full details of both hard and soft landscape proposals have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Soft landscape details shall include a planting plan, specification (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment), and schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate. In addition, an implementation timetable shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. If applicable, these details will also extend to cover areas of open space to be adopted by the Council; such areas shall be agreed in writing prior to development commencing. All hard and soft landscape works relevant to the phase of development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in accordance with the timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years after planting, are removed die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of species, size and number as originally approved, to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs and in accordance with Saved Policies E1(ii) and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011.

10 No development shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of screen walls and/or fences to be erected. In addition, an implementation timetable shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The approved screen walls and/or fences shall be erected in accordance with the approved details and timetable and shall subsequently be maintained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011

11 An Arboricultural Implication Assessment together with an Arboricultural Method Statement shall be submitted as part of any future application for full planning permission or reserved matters on this site. REASON: To ensure that full consideration is given to all tree issues as an integral part of the planning application for the benefit of the local amenities and the enhancement of the development itself, in accordance with Saved Policies E1(ii) and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

12 Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, a 'Code for Sustainable Homes', 'Design Stage Assessment' of the residential development, hereby approved, must be carried out by an independent licensed Code for Sustainable Homes assessor, and the results of the assessment incorporating the 'Design Stage Assessment' report and 'interim certificate' from the BRE, must submitted to the Local Planning Authority in writing.

The BRE Design Stage Assessment 'interim certification' must show that the residential development is likely to achieve a 'Code Level 3 standards' or 'Code Level 3 equivalent percentage points score' for the development in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

Prior to occupation of each dwelling a 'Code for Sustainable Homes' 'Post Construction Stage Review' is to be completed by an independent licensed Code for Sustainable Homes assessor demonstrating that the dwelling is expected to achieve 'Code 3 standards' or 'Code Level 3 equivalent percentage points score' and the results of the review must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority in writing'.

'Final Certification' from BRE or equivalent body, for each dwelling, must be submitted to the Local planning Authority within 3 months of post completion of the development phase.

The 'Final Certification' must show that the residential dwelling has been constructed and completed to achieve a 'Code 3 standard' or 'Code Level 3 equivalent percentage points score', unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

REASON: In the interests of sustainable development and to ensure that the development is constructed to the required environmental standard, in the context of Saved Policy E1 v) of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and Appendix 5 'Construction Statements' of the 'Design and Sustainability' Supplementary Planning Document.

13 No development, including any demolition works, soil moving, temporary access construction/widening, or storage of materials, shall commence until a Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include details of the following:

(a) details of how mature trees adjacent to the area of the proposed development will be protected during the construction works.

(b) details of the timing/ecological watching brief/felling procedures required to address the protection of breeding birds, reptiles, badgers and bats before and during any development works. A method statement to reduce the chance of disturbing any potential bat roosts if any trees are likely to be impacted by the proposed development should also be included.

(c) details of mitigation proposals for mitigating any potential adverse effects on bats or birds and any features that they are dependent on. This is to include the results of the additional dusk activity surveys and measures that will be taken to avoid light spillage along the known bat commuter routes and measures to ensure enough buffer width is retained along the known bat commuter routes.

(d) provisions for the supervision and monitoring of the plan, including briefing construction personnel, and the name and contact details of the person responsible for this;

No development or other operations shall take place other than in complete accordance with the approved Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

No habitat or other landscape features that are to be retained as part of the approved Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan shall be damaged or destroyed, or removed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority, before practical completion of the development.

If a habitat or other landscape feature is removed or damaged in contravention of this condition, a scheme of remedial action, with a timetable for implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 28 days of the incident. The scheme of remedial action must be approved by the Local Planning Authority before practical completion of the development and implemented in accordance with the approved timetable.

REASON: To minimise the impact on the existing biodiversity of the site and its surroundings, in accordance with Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan.

14 No development shall take place until full details of a habitat enhancement and management scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The details shall include:  Purpose, aims and objectives for the scheme, taking into account the site's existing biodiversity, results of species surveys and loss of habitats resulting from the development;  A full specification and method statement for implementation of the enhancement / habitat creation proposals  Sources of habitat materials (e.g. planting stock and its origin);  Aftercare and long term management;  Timing of the works and timetable for implementation;  Monitoring.

REASON: To help compensate for habitat loss resulting from the development and help to maintain the biodiversity of the area in the long term, in accordance with Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. The site also lies within East Woodhay to Headley Biodiversity Opportunity Area (BOA).

15 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 and turning of vehicles of site operatives and visitors (all to be established within one week of the commencement of development); ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv. wheel washing facilities or an explanation why they are not necessary; v. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; vi. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; vii. a scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and viii. the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway, particularly during the Monday to Friday AM peak (08.00 to 09.00) and PM peak (16.30 to 18.00) periods. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

16 No development shall take place on site until details of the method of construction of the means of accesses to Cutters Hill Road and Tile Barn Row, including their layout, construction, sight lines and drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved access details shall be constructed and fully implemented before the commencement of building and other operations on the site and shall be thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that satisfactory means of access to the highway are constructed before the approved buildings in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

17 No development shall be commenced on-site until an Agreement has been entered into pursuant to Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 or similar with the Local Highway Authority (Hampshire County Council) to enable alterations to the publicly maintained highway to create safe means of access and egress of the site, including a new road junction and footways on Cutters Hill Road and Tile Barn Row. The details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority. The new access and egress details shall be implemented in accordance with a programme agreed by the Local Highway Authority and shall be fully realised before the development hereby permitted is first occupied. REASON: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

18 If any material is imported onto the site to form soft landscaping areas this material should be subject to chemical testing before it is brought to site and once in-situ to ensure that it is suitable for use. REASON: To ensure any material imported onto the site is chemically tested to protect the occupiers of the application site and/or adjacent land and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

19 No work relating to the construction of the development hereby approved, including works of demolition or preparation prior to operations, or internal painting or fitting out, shall take place before the hours of 0730 nor after 1800 Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays nor on Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

20 No deliveries of construction materials or plant and machinery and no removal of any spoil from the site shall take place before the hours of 08:00 nor after 18:00 Monday to Friday; before the hours of 08:00 nor after 13:00 Saturdays; nor at any time on Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

21 Any community building subsequently approved under reserved matters shall not be occupied until the provision for the turning of vehicles and the parking of commercial and staff vehicles, including for disabled use, and the secure storage of bicycles has been made in compliance with current parking standards in order to serve that part of the development. The areas of land provided for these uses shall not be used for any other purposes than parking, storage and turning. REASON: In the interest of highway safety and to make proper provision for off-street parking in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

Informative(s):-

1. 1.1 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.

1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre-commencement conditions have been met.

1.3 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £97 per request or £28 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.

2. Consent under the Town and Country Planning Acts must not be taken as approval for any works carried out on any footway, including a Public Right of Way, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the publicly maintained highway. The development could involve works within the public highway. It is an offence to commence those works without the permission of the Highway Authority, Hampshire County Council. In the interests of highway safety the development should not commence on-site until permission has been obtained from the Highway Authority authorising any necessary works within the publicly maintained highway. Public Utility apparatus may also be affected by the development. Contact the appropriate public utility service to ensure agreement on any necessary alterations. Advice on this matter can be obtained from Hampshire County Council's Area Office, telephone 0845 8504422.

3. The Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan and the Habitat Enhancement/Management Plan should include all the wildlife protection, mitigation and enhancement measures given in the Section 4 of the Ecological Appraisal Report and should include a management plan for the areas of accessible natural green space which should cover a time period of at least ten years.

4. Arboricultural Implications Assessment (AIA);

This is a study undertaken by an arboriculturalist to identify, evaluate and possibly mitigate the extent of direct and indirect impacts on existing trees (both on and immediately adjacent to the site) that may arise as a result of the implementation of any proposed site layout. It would need to include a tree survey with identified Root Protection Areas. This information is important for the development of a Construction Exclusion Zone and a Tree Constraints Plan.

Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS); The Arboricultural Method Statement is a document that provides details for all works affecting trees to include a Tree Protection Plan containing the following information:

a) trees selected for retention clearly identified (e.g. by number) and marked on a plan with a continuous outline; b) trees to be removed, also clearly identified (e.g. by number) and marked on a plan with a dashed line; c) the precise location for the erection of protective barriers and any other relevant physical protection measures including ground protection to protect the Root Protection Areas and marked as a construction exclusion zone on the plan. d) design details of the proposed physical means of protection, indicated through drawings and/or descriptive text, including any development facilitation pruning; e) areas of structural landscaping (including tree planting) to be protected from construction operations (to prevent the soil structure being damaged). All the details in a-e above shall be incorporated into subsequent drawings and method statements used for design purposes or issued on site to ensure that all interested parties are fully aware of the areas in which access and works may not take place. The Arboricultural Method Statement should set out the proposals for avoiding disturbance to the physical protection forming the construction exclusion zone once it is installed. Consideration, allowances and planning for all construction operations that will be undertaken in the vicinity of trees will need to include:

a) site construction access b) the intensity and nature of the construction activity c) contractor's car parking d) phasing of construction works e) the space needed for all foundation excavation and construction works f) the availability of special construction techniques g) the location and space needed for all service runs including foul and surface water drains, land drains, soakaways, gas, oil, water, electricity, telephone, television or other communication cables; h) all changes in ground levels, including the location of retaining walls, steps and making adequate allowance for foundations of such walls and back fillings i) space for cranes, plant, scaffolding and access during works; j) space for site huts, temporary latrines (including their drainage) and other temporary structures; k) the type and extent of landscape works that will be required within the protected areas and the effect these will have on the root system l) space for storing (whether temporary or long-term) materials, spoil and fuel and the mixing of concrete. m) the effects of slope on the movement of potentially harmful liquid spillages towards or into protected areas.

The applicant's attention is drawn to British Standard BS 5837 'Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction' 2012. Further helpful advice is contained in the council's adopted Landscape and Biodiversity SPD.

5. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and proactive manner:-

offering a pre-application advice; seeking further information following receipt of the application; considering the imposition of conditions and or the completion of a s.106 legal agreement.

In this instance:

the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, was provided with pre-application advice.

In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

6. Whilst the Council has given outline planning consent for a flexible D1 / D2 use on this site as part of this application, the applicant should note that the following uses within the D2 Use Class of the Use Classes Order 2005 may not be considered suitable under a reserved matters application:

Cinema, concert hall, dance hall, sports hall, swimming baths, skating rink, gymnasium, bingo hall and/or a casino.