NOTICE OF MEETING

Meeting: Planning Committee

Date and Time: Wednesday, 11 March 2015 at 7.00 pm

Place: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Fleet

Telephone Enquiries to: Mrs Alison Cottrell, 01252 774141 [email protected] Members: Cockarill (Chairman), Billings, Blewett. Clarke, Gorys, Morris, Oliver, Radley JE, Southern, Wheale, Woods, Parker

Joint Chief Executive CIVIC OFFICES, HARLINGTON WAY FLEET, HAMPSHIRE GU51 4AE

AGENDA COPIES OF THIS AGENDA ARE AVAILABLE IN LARGE PRINT AND BRAILLE ON REQUEST

1 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

The Minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2015 to be confirmed and signed as a correct record. Paper A

2 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

3 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

1

4 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

To declare disclosable pecuniary, and any other, interests.

5 PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SUB-COMMITTEE

To note the minutes of the Planning (Enforcement) Sub Committee meeting held on the 1 December 2014. Paper B

6 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

To accept updates via the Addendum and to consider the planning report/schedule from the Head of Regulatory Services as attached. Paper C

Date of Despatch: 3 March 2015

The Human Rights Act 1998 (the Act) has incorporated part of the European Convention on Human Rights into English law. Any recommendation either to take or not to take enforcement action has been assessed to make sure that the decision is compatible with the Act. If there is a potential conflict, this will be highlighted in the individual report on the relevant item.

2

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Date and Time: 11 February 2015 at 7pm

Place: Council Chamber, Civic Offices

COUNCILLORS

Cockarill (Chairman)

Ambler (substitute for Radley JE), Bennison (substitute for Oliver), Billings, Clarke, Gorys, Morris, Southern, Wheale, Woods

Officers:

Nick Steevens Head of Regulatory Services Emma Whittaker Development Management Team Leader Gill Chapman Committee Services

58 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

The Minutes of the meeting held on the 14 January 2015 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

59 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Radley JE and Oliver. Councillors Bennison and Ambler had been notified as substitutes respectively.

60 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

None.

61 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

None.

62 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

The application set out in the accompanying schedule was considered and decisions made as shown. The Addendum was circulated and the updated information accepted.

The meeting closed at 7.12 pm

PL.122

HART DISTRICT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

Decisions / Recommendations – 11 February 2015

Item No: 101 - 14/02157/FUL – Little Rye Farm House, Rye Common, Odiham, Hook, RG29 1HU.

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 4 bedroom dwelling.

This application had been deferred from the Planning Committee Meeting of the 10 December 2014 to seek amended plans in relation to the siting of the garage that was proposed at the front of the plot. A revised site plan had been amended removing the garage from the proposal. Three parking spaces will be retained in the bay where the garage was previously proposed, with additional space also available in front of the dwelling for parking.

The application does not accord with the Local Plan or approved policy of the Council. It represents a DEPARTURE to the Local Plan because the site is located in the open countryside outside of any defined settlement boundary. There are no policies in the Local Plan that support this proposal and consequently it is contrary to Saved Policy RUR2.

The reasons why Planning Committee considers that the departure from the Local Plan is acceptable are:

The Planning Committee concluded that the site is accessible to a good range of services and facilities. Whilst a bus stop is located within walking distance of the site the bus service appears to have been withdrawn since the Planning Committee; it is considered this does not materially alter the accessibility of the site.

The Planning Committee considered that the proposal would tidy up the site by removing a derelict barn.

Members did not consider that the site was ‘isolated’ as it was located within a small cluster of dwellings albeit not within a defined settlement boundary.

The proposal had the added benefit of adding to Hart’s housing land supply position.

The Planning Committee’s conclusion was that this development represents sustainable development as required in the NPPF.

The Planning Committee concluded that although a DEPARTURE to the Local Plan and approved policy, there was no overall harm to the open countryside and that the proposal complies with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Statement.

Members were content with the amended plans. They were concerned that permitted development could allow future development of a garage, particularly from outbuildings. After discussion it was agreed to that permitted development rights should be removed, in order to ensure the need for permission if the applicants wished to build a garage in future.

PL.123

RESOLVED –

A. The application be referred to Full Council with a recommendation that the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to GRANT permission subject to the prior completion of an appropriate legal agreement to secure appropriate SPA mitigation AND subject to the following conditions:

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

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

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

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

3 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Hard details shall include, as appropriate, proposed finished levels and/or contours, means of enclosure of unbuilt open areas, car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas, hard surfacing materials and artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, refuse or other storage units, signage, lighting, external services, manholes, etc.). Soft landscape details shall include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant establishment), schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes and proposed densities where appropriate. Details shall further include a proposed timetable for planting and laying out of hard surfaces and roads.

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

4 Hard and soft landscaping works shall be fully carried out in accordance with the approved details, including the approved timetable, and to a reasonable standard in accordance with the relevant provisions of appropriate British Standards or other recognised codes of good practice. The Council shall be notified in writing of the completion of the scheme or any agreed phase of such scheme. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years after approved completion, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of similar species, size and number as originally approved, unless the Council gives its written consent to any variation.

PL.124

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

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

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

6 Before the first occupation of the building hereby permitted the first floor en-suite window in the flank elevation shall be fitted with obscure glazing and shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.

Reason: in the interests of residential amenities

7. The development hereby approved shall at all times be completed in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Green Earth Ecological Appraisal dated August 2014.

Reason: in the interests of ecology in accordance with the objectives of Policy CON5 of the Hart District Local Plan (as saved).

8. The development hereby approved shall be completed at all times in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Tree Survey by Arboricultural and Environmental Consultancy submitted with the application.

Reason: to ensure the protection of significant trees in accordance with the objectives of Policy CON8 of the Hart District Local Plan (as saved).

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order with or without modification) no building, enclosure, swimming pool or other pool, as permitted by Class E of Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the Order, shall be constructed.

Reason: To ensure the external character and appearance of the building is retained and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

PL.125

B. In the event that the requirements as set out in Recommendation A above are not progressed to the satisfaction of the Head of Regulatory Services within 2 months of the date of Full Council, the application be refused for the following reason.

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

INFORMATIVES

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

The applicant was advised of the necessary information needed to process the application. The applicant was advised of the issues relating to the siting of the garage and has amended the plans to remove this.

2 Should any land contaminants or unexpected ground conditions be identified during the development then please contact the Council's Environmental Health Team.

3 You may require Building Regulations Consent and we advise that you should contact Building Control on 01252 774422.

NOTE :

Graham Johnson of Little Rye Farm House, Rye Common, Odiham, spoke for the application

PL.126

PLANNING (ENFORCEMENT) SUB-COMMITTEE

Date and Time: 1 December 2014 at 10 am

Place: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Fleet

Present:

COUNCILLORS

Oliver (Chairman)

Blewett, Southern, Woods

Officers:

Nick Steevens Head of Regulatory Services Sarah Castle Principal Planning Officer Sharon Whittaker Enforcement Officer James Hucklesby Environmental Health Technical Officer Nathalie Heaselden Principal Solicitor - Shared Legal Services Alison Cottrell Committee Services

9 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

Following the amendments to Minute 7, Land at Warren Heath and South of Church Road, Eversley, set out below, the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2014 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Officer Report / Executive Summary – Land at Warren Heath and South Of Church Road, Eversley, Hook, Hampshire.

There is a grammatical error in the penultimate paragraph of the officer recommendation and “for an excess” should read “in excess”. Section 7.0 Title Considerations – the last sentence of that paragraph should read as ‘Structures for the purposes of the permitted development, in addition, may also be sited for not more than 28 days in total in any calendar year’.

Minute 7 Land at Warren Heath and South of Church Road, Eversley

That the last paragraph before the Resolution be amended to read as follows :

Members agreed that some issues, eg noise and advertising consent issues, should be dealt with elsewhere. Members clarified that if they voted in favour of it not being expedient to take enforcement action this would not prevent the Council from bringing the matter back to committee if officers considered that the circumstances or use had changed or intensified. Legal advice was given to the officers that this would be possible, but that eventually any use in Pl.Enf.4

breach of planning control would become immune from enforcement action through the passage of time if no further action was taken. After a vote the amended resolution was passed to take no further action at this present time, as it was not expedient to pursue with enforcement action.

That the points discussed should read as follows:

Members considered the issues. Points discussed included:

The business had been going on for a long time, with the first recorded invoice in 1989. There were no Council records that far back on these sites. Whether the Council had records of complaints regarding noise or disruption. The sites were being used by more than one operative for various activities and games. Residents claimed intensity of use but this could not be proved and would be investigated. Whether the buildings on site were of a temporary nature or amounted to development requiring planning permission. Advertising boards had been erected on gates. This was a separate issue. War games were a relatively new ‘sport’ without statutory guidance on noise etc. Noise nuisance could be dealt with separately through Environmental Health. James Hucklesby, Environmental Health, advised on this.

10 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

None.

11 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

None.

12 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

No interests were declared.

13 YATELEY CAR AUCTIONS, MILL LANE, YATELEY, HAMPSHIRE – 14/00108/ENQ

An Enforcement case was opened on this site following an allegation that a change of use had occurred. A site visit carried out on 14 May 2014 confirmed that the site was no longer a dairy operation but instead had become a car auction site.

Members considered the issues and discussed the following points:

The site is adjacent to Mill Lane, Yateley and Yateley Lakes, formerly being a Unigate Dairy site and now being used by Camberley Car Auctions. That the original use as a dairy was classed as B8 but that Car Auction use, land and rooms are Sui Generis.

Pl.Enf.5

That a planning application had been submitted but had been invalid and that the Council is unable to force Camberley Car Auctions to validate their application. That the auctions take place twice a week, that there have been no highway issues and no complaints from neighbours. That the site can accommodate up to 40 cars, taking customers cars as well as cars being auctioned and can therefore accommodate the current use. That if the operation enlarged or complaints were received, the issue could be re-visited.

RESOLVED

No further action as it is considered not expedient to pursue enforcement action.

14 MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES – ITEM 7 – LANE AT WARREN HEATH AND SOUTH CHURCH ROAD, EVERSLEY

Members had considered the issues and complaints raised and how they had been dealt with and processed.

The Committee agreed that the Officers and Joint Chief Executive should deal with this as a formal complaint through the Council’s complaints procedures and that if it was deemed necessary to do so, the Joint Chief Executive will prepare the case to be brought back to the Planning (Enforcement) Sub-Committee at a later date.

The complainant was asked whether he was happy with this approach in terms of progressing his complaint. The complainant stated that he was probably content and given that his dispute was with how the officers presented the evidence he wanted to ensure that the correct officers investigated this (ie the Joint Chief Executive) to ensure that officers were not investigating themselves. It was confirmed that the Joint Chief Executive would be investigating the matter.

The meeting closed at 10.45 am

Pl.Enf.6

HEAD OF REGULATORY SERVICES REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OF 11th March 2015

1. INTRODUCTION This agenda considers planning applications submitted to the Council, as the Local Planning Authority, for determination

2. STATUS OF OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMITTEE'S DECISIONS All information, advice, and recommendations contained in this agenda are understood to be correct at the time of preparation, which is approximately two weeks in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints, some reports may have been prepared before the final date for consultee responses or neighbour comment. Where a recommendation is either altered or substantially amended between preparing the report and the Committee meeting or where additional information has been received, a separate “Planning Addendum” paper will be circulated at the meeting to assist Councillors. This paper will be available to members of the public.

3. THE DEBATE AT THE MEETING The Chairman of the Committee will introduce the item to be discussed. A Planning Officer will then give a short presentation and, if applicable, public speaking will take place (see below). The Committee will then debate the application with the starting point being the officer recommendation.

4. SITE VISITS A Panel of Members visits some sites on the day before the Committee meeting. This can be useful to assess the effect of the proposal on matters that are not clear from the plans or from the report. The Panel does not discuss the application or receive representations although applicants and Town/Parish Councils are advised of the arrangements. These are not public meetings. A summary of what was viewed is given on the Planning Addendum.

5. THE COUNCIL’S APPROACH TO THE DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS When considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

It will always work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. This means that any discussions with applicants and developers at both pre-application and application stage will be positively framed as both parties work together to find solutions to problems. This does not necessarily mean however, that development that is unacceptable in principle or which causes harm to an interest of acknowledged importance, will be allowed.

The Local Plan is the starting point for decision making. Proposals that accord with the Local Plan will be approved without delay. Development that conflicts with the Local Plan will be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

1

Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision the Council will seek to grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise – taking into account whether: (i) Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Local Plan taken as a whole; or (i) Specific policies in the Local Pan indicate that development should be restricted.

The Council will grant planning permission where it is satisfied that it will achieve a positive outcome that meets a recognised planning purpose.

Unsatisfactory applications will however, be refused without discussion where: (ii) The proposal is unacceptable in principle and there are no clear material considerations that indicate otherwise; or (i) A completely new design would be needed to overcome objections; or (ii) Clear pre-application advice has been given, but the applicant has not followed that advice; or (iii) No pre-application advice has been sought.

6. PLANNING POLICY All planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise If the development plan contains material policies or proposals and there are no other material considerations, the application should be determined in accordance with the development plan. Where there are other material considerations, the development plan will be the starting point, and other material considerations will also be taken into account. One such consideration will be whether the plan policies are relevant and up to date.

The relevant development plans are the saved policies in the South East Plan, the Hart District Local Plan including first alterations, the Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton, New Forest National Park Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, and the saved policies of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

Although not necessarily specifically referred to in the Committee report, the relevant development plan will have been used as a background document and the relevant policies taken into account in the preparation of the report on each item.

7. THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK Government statements of planning policy are material considerations that must be taken into account in deciding planning applications. These statements cannot make irrelevant any matter that is a material consideration in a particular case. Nevertheless, where such statements indicate the weight that should be given to relevant considerations, decision-makers must have proper regard to them. The NPPF is a material consideration in determining applications. The NPPF states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development with its economic, social and environmental roles. All three aims should be sought jointly and simultaneously. The presumption in favour of sustainable development in decision making means: (i) approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and (ii) where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

2

The NPPF indicates that a local plan will not be considered up to date on housing policies where the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land.

8. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Material planning considerations must be genuine planning considerations, i.e. they must be related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. The considerations must also fairly and reasonably relate to the application concerned. Much will depend on the nature of the application under consideration, the relevant planning policies and the surrounding circumstances. All the fundamental factors involved in land- use planning constitute a material consideration. This includes such things as the number, size, layout, siting, design and external appearance of buildings and the proposed means of access, together with landscaping, impact on the neighbourhood and the availability of infrastructure. Relevant considerations will vary from circumstance to circumstance and from application to application.

The Council will base its decisions on planning applications on planning grounds alone. It will not use its planning powers to secure objectives achievable under non-planning legislation, such as the Building Regulations or the Water Industries Act. The grant of planning permission does not remove the need for any other consents, nor does it imply that such consents will necessarily be forthcoming. However, provided a consideration is material in planning terms, it will be taken into account, notwithstanding the fact that other regulatory machinery may exist.

Matters that should not be taken into account are:  loss of property value  loss of view  land and boundary disputes  matters covered by leases or covenants  the impact of construction work  property maintenance issues  need for development (save in certain  the identity or personal characteristics of the defined circumstances) applicant  ownership of land or rights of way  moral objections to development like public houses or betting shops  change to previous scheme  competition between firms,  or matters that are dealt with by other legislation, such as the Building Regulations (e.g. structural safety, fire risks, means of escape in the event of fire etc). - The fact that a development may conflict with other legislation is not a reason to refuse planning permission or defer a decision. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure compliance with all relevant legislation.

The Council will base its decisions on planning applications on planning grounds alone. It will not use its planning powers to secure objectives achievable under non-planning legislation, such as the Building Regulations or the Water Industries Act. The grant of planning permission does not remove the need for any other consents, nor does it imply that such consents will necessarily be forthcoming.

9. PLANNING CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS When used properly, conditions can enhance the quality of development and enable development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse planning permission, by mitigating the adverse effects of the development. Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are: 1. necessary; 2. relevant to planning and; 3. to the development to be permitted;

3

4. enforceable; 5. precise and; 6. reasonable in all other respects.”

It may be possible to overcome a planning objection to a development proposal equally well by imposing a condition on the planning permission or by entering into a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In such cases the Council should use a condition rather than seeking to deal with the matter by means of a planning obligation.

Planning obligations mitigate the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Obligations should meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework.

In all cases, including where tariff style charges are sought, the Council must ensure that the obligation meets the relevant tests for planning obligations in that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.

Planning obligations should not be sought – on for instance, public art – which are clearly not necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms

The Government is clear that obligations must be fully justified and evidenced.

10. PLANNING APPEALS If an application for planning permission is refused by the Council, or if it is granted with conditions, an appeal can be made to the Secretary of State against the decision, or the conditions. It is the Councils responsibility to produce evidence to show clearly, why the development cannot be permitted. Reasons for refusal must be complete, precise, specific relevant to the application, and supported by substantiated evidence.

Appeals are administered by the Planning Inspectorate - an executive agency reporting to the Secretary of State. Appeals are considered by written representation, hearings, and public inquiries. In planning appeals, it is normally expected that both parties will pay their own costs.

The Council is at risk of an award of costs against it if it behaves unreasonably with respect to the substance of the matter under appeal, for example, by unreasonably refusing or failing to determine planning applications, or by unreasonably defending appeals. Examples of this include: preventing or delaying development which should clearly be permitted, having regard to its accordance with the development plan, national policy and any other material considerations. failure to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal on appeal Gives too much weight to neighbour objections, the extent of local opposition is not, in itself, a reasonable ground for resisting development. To carry significant weight, opposition should be founded on valid planning reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.

4

Relies on unsubstantiated objections where they include valid reasons for refusal but rely almost exclusively on local opposition from third parties, through representations and attendance at an inquiry or hearing, to support the decision. Fails to show that it has considered the possibility of imposing relevant planning conditions to allow development to proceed. vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact, which are unsupported by any objective analysis. refusing planning permission on a planning ground capable of being dealt with by conditions risks an award of costs, where it is concluded that suitable conditions would enable the proposed development to go ahead acting contrary to, or not following, well-established case law persisting in objections to a scheme or elements of a scheme which the Secretary of State or an Inspector has previously indicated to be acceptable not determining similar cases in a consistent manner failing to grant a further planning permission for a scheme that is the subject of an extant or recently expired permission where there has been no material change in circumstances refusing to approve reserved matters when the objections relate to issues that should already have been considered at the outline stage imposing a condition that is not necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects, and thus does not comply with the guidance in the NPPFon planning conditions and obligations requiring that the appellant enter into a planning obligation which does not accord with the law or relevant national policy in the National Planning Policy Framework, on planning conditions and obligations refusing to enter into pre-application discussions, or to provide reasonably requested information, when a more helpful approach would probably have resulted in either the appeal being avoided altogether, or the issues to be considered being narrowed, thus reducing the expense associated with the appeal not reviewing their case promptly following the lodging of an appeal against refusal of planning permission (or non-determination), or an application to remove or vary one or more conditions, as part of sensible on-going case management. if the Council grants planning permission on an identical application where the evidence base is unchanged and the scheme has not been amended in any way, they run the risk of a full award of costs for an abortive appeal which is subsequently withdrawn.

Statutory consultees (and this includes Parish Council’s) play an important role in the planning system: local authorities often give significant weight to the technical advice of the key statutory consultees. Where the Council has relied on the advice of the statutory consultee in refusing an application, there is a clear expectation that the consultee in question will substantiate its advice at any appeal. Where the statutory consultee is a party to the appeal, they may be liable to an award of costs to or against them.

Interested parties who choose to be recognised as Rule 6 parties under the inquiry procedure rules, may be liable to an award of costs if they behave unreasonably.

11. THE ROLE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE The Secretary of State has reserve powers to direct the council to refer an application to him/her for decision. This is what is meant by a 'called-in' application. In general, this power of intervention is used selectively and the Secretary of State will not interfere with the jurisdiction of the Council unless it is necessary to do so.

5

12. PROPRIETY Members of the Planning Committee are obliged to represent the interests of the whole community in planning matters and not simply their individual Wards. When determining planning applications they must take into account planning considerations only. This can include views expressed on relevant planning matters. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless it is founded upon valid planning reasons.

13. PRIVATE INTERESTS The planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another, although private interests may coincide with the public interest in some cases. It can be difficult to distinguish between public and private interests, but this may be necessary on occasion. The basic question is not whether owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities and the existing use of land and buildings that ought to be protected in the public interest. Covenants or the maintenance/ protection of private property are therefore not material planning consideration.

14. OTHER LEGISLATION Non-planning legislation may place statutory requirements on planning authorities, or may set out controls that need to be taken into account (for example, environmental legislation, or water resources legislation). The Council, in exercising its functions, also must have regard to the general requirements of other legislation, in particular: The Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. The general purpose of the ECHR is to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to maintain and promote the ideals and values of a democratic society. It sets out the basic rights of every person together with the limitations placed on these rights in order to protect the rights of others and of the wider community. The specific Articles of the ECHR relevant to planning include Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property). All planning applications are assessed to make sure that the subsequent determination of the development proposal is compatible with the Act. If there is a potential conflict, this will be highlighted in the report on the relevant item. The Equality Act 2010 which replaced previous discrimination legislation. This puts a duty on public bodies, such as the Council, to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations in the course of developing policies and delivering services. The aim is for public bodies to consider the needs of all individuals in their day to day work, in developing policy, in delivering services, and in relation to their own employees. The need to advance equality of opportunity involves considering the need to: o remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics; o meet the needs of people with protected characteristics; and o encourage people with protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is low

15. PUBLIC SPEAKING

6

The Council has a public speaking scheme, which allows a representative of the relevant Parish Council, objectors and applicants to address the Planning Committee. Full details of the scheme are on the Council’s website and are sent to all applicants and objectors where the scheme applies. Speaking is only available to those who have made representations within the relevant period or the applicant. It is not possible to arrange to speak to the Committee at the Committee meeting itself. Speakers are limited to a total of three minutes each per item for the Parish Council, those speaking against the application and for the applicant /agent. Speakers are not permitted to ask questions of others or to join in the debate, although the Committee may ask questions of the speaker to clarify representations made or facts after they have spoken. For probity reasons associated with advance disclosure of information under the Access to Information Act, nobody will be allowed to circulate, show or display further material at, or just before, the Committee meeting.

16. LATE REPRESENTATIONS

To make sure that all documentation is placed in the public domain and to ensure that the Planning Committee, applicants, objectors, and any other party has had a proper opportunity to consider further or new representations no new additional information will be allowed to be submitted less than 48 hours before the Committee meeting, except where to correct an error of fact in the report.

17. INSPECTION OF DRAWINGS

All drawings are available for inspection on the internet at www.hart.gov.uk

7

Annex A to Planning Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SPA is a network of heathland sites which are designated for their ability to provide a habitat for the internationally important bird species of woodlark, nightjar and Dartford warbler. The area is designated as a result of the Birds Directive and the European Habitats Directive and protected in the 8

UK under the provisions set out in the Habitats Regulations. These bird species are particularly subject to disturbance from walkers, dog walkers and cat predation because they nest on or near the ground.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9

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

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

Leisure As part of living in a dwelling its residents will use the local leisure infrastructure to undertake recreation. The impact on infrastructure used for recreation is clearly a material planning consideration.

Some of this infrastructure is of a strategic, District-wide, nature while other is more local. At a local level the Council has determined that as a general rule the local infrastructure will be considered at the Parish level.

Even where infrastructure is of a District wide nature it is clear that the further from a development itself the less likely that the residents will use that infrastructure. Utilising visitor data, the Council has set “zones of influence” of the individual elements where it is known that residents visit and will have an impact.

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

Without the necessary obligation additional development would exacerbate the existing deficiency in provision for leisure facilities within the vicinity of the site through an increase in population who would have access to the facilities. The scale of the contribution has been assessed through the Council's Leisure Strategy as being appropriate to mitigate these effects.

Education Hampshire County Council has advised in their policy document Developers’ Contributions towards Children’s Services Facilities December 2011 where the availability of school places is particularly critical, contributions should be sought in relation to each individual dwelling. Hampshire County Council has confirmed that there are particular pressures on places at the primary and secondary schools in the Fleet/Church Crookham schools catchment area, and in the catchment of the Robert Mays secondary school in Odiham where any increase in population will add to the demand beyond the available capacity. Full details of the issues are set out in the Community Infrastructure Policy.

In both Fleet/Church Crookham and in Odiham programmes for the provision of additional educational facilities are well advanced. The County Council considers it preferable to invest in existing schools where achievable in building terms and where agreement can be reached with the headteacher and governors of the schools involved.

Schools are ideally organised into classes of 30 pupils across the age range of the school to support curriculum delivery relevant to the pupil year group and to meet statutory class size regulations whereby no class can be larger than 30 for pupils aged 5 to 7. It is not practical, therefore, for schools to marginally increase their capacity, have larger than ideal class sizes, or create a budget deficit due to the need to employ an additional teacher for very small increases to pupil numbers.

10

At a primary level as a result of this significant level of new housing in the Fleet area discussions have taken place with local schools regarding provision of additional places. At primary level the current plan is to provide additional places at the Tweseldown Infant and Church Crookham Junior schools, Tavistock Infant and All Saints CE(A) Junior schools, and Heatherside Infant and Junior schools.

At the secondary level discussions have taken place with the headteacher of Calthorpe Park School on a planned increase in pupil numbers to reflect the need for additional places. A phased approach is being developed to reflect expected demand over the next 15 years with up to 750 additional places being provided. Additional land to the south of the school site will be required to provide the additional playing pitches required to cater for the increase in the size of school.

Similarly, there have been discussions with the headteacher of Robert Mays School on a planned increase in pupil numbers to reflect the need for additional places. Additional land to the east and west of the school site is likely to be required to provide the additional playing pitches required to cater for the increase in the size of school.

In terms of the policy tests in the NPPF a contribution will mitigate the effects of the development on the education infrastructure. The scale and kind of the contribution sought relates to the facilities being provided. The details of the direct link between the contribution and the development are set out above.

11

Item No: 101 Page: 13 – 56 14/01704/MAJOR Refer to Full Council

Land East Of Hook Road North Warnborough Hook Hampshire

Development of 33 dwellings, access, roads and associated landscape, drainage and infrastructure works.

Item No: 102 Page: 57 – 73 14/02539/FUL Refer to Full Council

Rotherwick House The Street Rotherwick Hook RG27 9BL

Proposed erection of a detached two-storey dwelling and detached garage and stores, and replacement garage for Rotherwick House, following demolition of existing garage and pool building.

Item No: 103 Page: 74 – 87 14/03057/REM Grant

Glen Haven Dunleys Hill Odiham Hook Hampshire RG29 1DU

Application for approval of reserved matters in respect of the appearance, scale and landscaping of the 3 dwellings along with the parking areas, drives and landscaping area. Reserved matters to be determined: (i) Appearance (ii) Scale (iii) Landscaping

Item No: 104 Page: 88-97 14/03060/FUL Grant

Greenslopes Cricket Hill Lane Yateley Hampshire GU46 6BA

Change of use of the site to a mixed use comprising of a class C3 dwellinghouse and continued use of shed, office, skip and storage compound for building/roofing business.

12

COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 101 APPLICATION NO. 14/01704/MAJOR LOCATION Land East Of Hook Road North Warnborough Hook Hampshire PROPOSAL Development of 33 dwellings, access, roads and associated landscape, drainage and infrastructure works. APPLICANT Banner Homes Southern Ltd CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 8 January 2015 APPLICATION EXPIRY 27 October 2014 PLANNING COMMITTEE Cllr Stephen Gorys WARD MEMBER RECOMMENDATION Refer to Full Council

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

13

SITE MASTERPLAN

14

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN

15

ELEVATIONS PLOT 2-7

ELEVATIONS PLOT 9

ELEVATIONS PLOTS 12-14

16

ELEVATIONS PLOTS 20-21

STREET SCENE PLOTS 15-20

STREET SCENE PLOTS 29-33

17

This is a full planning application for the development of 33 residential dwellings, vehicular access from Hook Road, pedestrian access from the Basingstoke Canal towpath, public open space, drainage works and landscaping.

The recommendation is that the application should be referred to Full Council with a recommendation that subject to the Council being satisfied that the development delivers significant benefits that outweigh the presumption against inappropriate development within open countryside and the Basingstoke Canal and North Warnborough Conservation Areas, the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to grant permission subject to the prior completion of an appropriate legal agreement.

The reason why the application is considered, on balance, to be acceptable is that, subject to suitable conditions, the proposal represents a sustainable form of development in line with the Interim Housing Delivery Strategy which would not result in significant harm to the local environment or heritage assets.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application is referred to the Planning Committee as it represents a departure from the Local Plan. It represents development outside, but adjacent to, a settlement and within two conservation areas, where the form and fabric of development should be strictly controlled if their importance as designated heritage assets is to be maintained.

The applicants held a pre-application public exhibition on 13th July 2014. The exhibition was advertised in local press prior to the event and approximately 55-60 people attended. It is also understood that the applicants have met some local residents individually including with the applicants drainage consultant.

Amended plans and further supporting information were received on 17 December 2014 which changed the proposed design of the scheme in response to the consultation. The main changes were:

Reduction in the number of residential dwellings from 37 to 33 Opening up of the central part of the southern portion of the site which allow views across the site to and from Hook Road Reduction in the scale of the frontage properties along Hook Road Reconfiguration of some proposed dwellings to ensure a better relationship between them and the Basingstoke Canal Revisions to the supporting Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)

All neighbours and consultees have been notified of these changes.

The proposal has been subject to independent review with regard to flood risk (Stilwell Partnership) and local heritage (JP Heritage).

An addendum to the FRA was received in January 2015 outlining proposed off-site drainage works.

Minor amendments to the proposed parking layout were received on 28 January 2015. Further amendments to proposed dwellings 13 and 14 were received on 20 February 2015. The Site Plan was revised accordingly in line with this.

A joint statement on clearance and maintenance of local land drainage system was received on 27 February 2015 from the applicant and the applicant of an adjacent site (14/02463/FUL; Land to the rear of the former Chilli Pad Erection of 3 no. dwellings together with associated parking and access).

18

APPLICATION SITE

The application site is located to the east of Hook Road, North Warnborough. The application site is outside but adjacent to the North Warnborough settlement boundary as defined in the Local Plan. The application site is also located within both the North Warnborough Conservation Area and Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area. The application site is 1.578ha in extent.

To the east of the application site is the Basingstoke Canal Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and towpath. The eastern site boundary is formed by the embankment of the Basingstoke Canal which lies about 1m above the level of the site. For reference, the canal embankment lies outside the application site. The boundary between the application site and canal towpath is characterised by dense vegetation which from a nearly continuous and dense screen which largely restricts views from the canal towpath across the site.

The application site, essentially, comprises two distinct areas of land - a 'southern' portion and a 'northern' portion - which are linked by a narrow piece of land, approximately 9-11m in width, located between Barley House and the Basingstoke Canal.

'Southern' Portion

To the south of the southern portion site is a modern, two-storey residential development at Swan Mews. To the west of the southern portion are Hook Road and several detached residential properties which comprise a mix of older, listed houses, including The Cat which is directly opposite the site, and large, modern houses. The southern portion has a mainly open frontage to Hook Road. To the north of the southern portion are the Grade II listed Nevills House and two smaller scale curtilage listed residential dwellings, The Bakery and The Granary. Between these dwellings and the Basingstoke Canal is the modern, two-storey brick and timber clad Barley House.

'Northern' Portion

The southern boundary of the 'northern' portion is the curtilages of Nevills House, The Bakery, The Granary and Barley House. To the west of the northern portion is a small paddock, currently undeveloped but with an extent permission for four residential dwellings, and beyond this the listed Castlebridge Cottages. To the north-west of the northern portion is the former Chilli Pad public house and curtilage. Beyond this are a number of dwellings, some listed, which front onto Hook Road. To the north of the northern portion is a Thames Water pumping station and a small area of land with an existing drainage culvert.

To the north of this area is open countryside comprising pasture and beyond this, the River Whitewater Site of Interest to Nature Conservation (SINC). A permissive footpath crosses the northern portion between the canal and the former public house. Most of the visually significant vegetation on the site is situated around the site boundaries and there are no significant trees growing within either the northern or southern portions of the site. Both portions are unimproved grassland. Both portions of the application site, essentially, comprise nearly level ground but there is a slight fall from south-east to north-west of approximately 1.5m. An existing drainage channel crosses the site from the south-east corner to the north-west corner. This includes a culvert under the curtilage of Barley House.

PROPOSAL

The proposal is for 33 residential dwellings, associated access, vehicular parking, landscaping and open space, and sustainable urban drainage systems.

19

The proposed dwellings are a mix of flats, terraces, semi-detached and detached houses. The dwellings are predominantly one-and-half and two-storey.

The proposed housing mix is:

1-bed flat 2-bed flat 2-bed 3-bed 4+ bed house house house Market 4 0 7 2 7 Social Rented 4 1 1 2 0 Intermediate 0 0 3 2 0 Total 8 1 11 6 7

As such, the proposal is for 13 affordable dwellings and 20 market dwellings.

The proposed vernacular is mixed with the utilisation of a variety of materials. 31 of the proposed dwellings would have either a private garden or access to a shared private garden. The heights of the dwellings range between 7.8m and 9.6m.

The proposal would provide 96 parking spaces through a mix of surface parking, garages and open sided car ports.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The site has an extensive planning history including several planning appeals.

14/01016/EIAE Request for EIA Screening Opinion: Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 Does not need EIA

00/01306/OUT Outline application for residential development Appeal Dismissed

HDC/23378 Outline application for 15 dwellings Appeal Dismissed

HDC/21626 Construction of 16 residential dwellings Appeal Dismissed

HDC/21244 Construction of 18 residential dwellings Appeal Dismissed

HDC/18110 Outline application for 33 dwellings Refused

20

CONSULTEES RESPONSES

External

Odiham Parish Council (revised comments 26 February 2015)

Odiham Parish Council does not consider that the amendments make this application acceptable.

Before starting on a Neighbourhood Plan, OPC did consider recommending this site for development at a lower density both to preserve the character of the Conservation Area and to allow a more secure protection against flood risk downstream and downhill of the site. The NP is now in full swing considering sites for consultation and is planned to be at pre-submission stage by July this year.

Our grounds for objection are:

1) Hart has a greater than 5 year housing supply;

2) This proposal fails to meet Planning Principle 2 of Hart’s Interim Housing Development Strategy, being outside the settlement boundary, not consistent with the character of the area and, because it lacks secure drainage infrastructure it risks causing flooding off-site (see 5 below)

3) It fails to meet Hart Saved Policy RUR 2 (judged by the planning inspector (12/00540/FUL) as compliant with the NPPF, therefore up to date) by having a significant detrimental effect on the character and setting of the countryside by virtue of its siting, size and prominence in the landscape;

4) It twice fails to meet Saved Policy CON 13 by failing to conserve or enhance each of the North Warnborough and the Basingstoke Canal Conservation Areas:

North Warnborough CA: the applicant’s own admission of minor harm; the alteration of character from “open spaces interspersed with houses” to 3 houses deep interspersed with a single small space; the overall height of the houses, and on rising land, which will tower over nearby listed buildings; the failure to illustrate the relative heights with a street scene; the lack of appropriate design references; the stated assumption that 3-deep housing will be an improvement on a scrubby field, whose current state is the responsibility of the landowner..

Basingstoke Canal CA: an urbanising effect on the Canal – at the point where it emerges into countryside, with noted attractive views and glimpses of listed buildings across the field; the Canal is due respect for its setting as a heritage asset in its own right and we have yet to see agreement by the Canal Authority that the bank stability is not at risk.

5) It fails to meet paragraph 103 of the NPPF by failing to ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere:

The flood work dismisses inconvenient real experience which is un-calibrated and can be summarised in the letter linked to the FRA “currently we are required to account for the risk of flooding from all sources but no policy requires to model joint probabilities of the individual sources of flood risk occurring together This is because such a capability is at the stage of research and development and not ready for practical applications.” Yet the NPPF requires that development does not exacerbate flood risk off a site. The properties which already suffer regular risk of flooding are DOWNHILL from the site and many are listed buildings, to which we owe a special duty of care, apart from the normal NPPF duty not to exacerbate flooding elsewhere.

21

An assumption is made, but no proof offered, that maintenance or lack of it is the only cause of flooding downstream of the site. It recognises that past incidents reflect extreme events, which are widely forecast both to continue and to become more extreme, yet fails to allow for them.

It promises flow control storage and constraint of discharges to the watercourse, but in an extreme event, given the ground water levels in the vicinity, the storage capacity is likely to be overwhelmed. When the current sources of flooding incidents are dismissed as anecdotal, and the model is acknowledged to be unable to reflect combined situations, it is impossible to see how confidence can be arrived at to allow development.

Its credibility is questionable when the applicant‘s expert prefers his model and desktop studies to the evidence of his own eyes (FRA 4.34; 4.49). It makes blithe assumptions that the pumping station has failed due to lack of maintenance, yet all 3 pumps have just been replaced and failed again on 27th December.

In summary, it is unsafe to consider granting this application with a condition to complete recommended 6 months’ monitoring – what will happen if monitoring demonstrates an inability of the site to cope with this proposal?

6) We ask Hart to consider the cumulative effect of this development to both conservation character and flooding, as it come on top of the many admittedly smaller sites recently granted, all in the same part of the CA, and not all of which have even started. In summary, this application constitutes over-development of this site both on conservation and on flood risk grounds.

Cllr Crookes

I endorse and support the Parish Council's comments on flood risk on this site.

A piece of work needs to be done to understand how water gets on to this site and the site drainage constraints. Some years ago when Queens Road, Bufton Field was built in North Warnborough there were drainage issues which were I think fixed by some new drains which may impact this Hook Road site.

We also need to understand how surface water drains from the rear of Addison Gardens, Odiham, into the Deer Park. This may or may not also end up in this Hook Road site. This current planning application is I think the 4th for land on this side of Hook Road (Chilli Pad, Land to the rear of the Chilli Pad, Land at the rear of Castlebridge Cottages and now this one). We need to consider the cumulative effect of these developments on the drainage.

English Heritage

The application(s) should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

Environment Agency

With regard to biodiversity, the proposed development will be acceptable providing it includes information about how the Basingstoke Canal, designated as a SSSI, will be protected and enhanced. With regard to flood risk, given the site is between 1 and 5 hectares and lies in Flood Zone 1, the EA

22 will not make a bespoke response on surface water. Detailed advice is set out.

Natural England

No objection. This application is in close proximity to the Basingstoke Canal Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). However, given the nature and scale of this proposal, Natural England is satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse effect on this site as a result of the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application was submitted. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. The advice and conditions set out in our letter dated 25 September 2014 are still relevant. Additional advice also provided.

Basingstoke Canal Authority

The Canal Authority is concerned about aspects of this proposed development. The grounds for concern are:-

Structural integrity of the Basingstoke Canal Public Access Ecology Landscape

Supporting detailed comment provided.

Basingstoke Canal Society

Basingstoke Canal Society objects to the proposal. The grounds for our objection are as follows:

Impact on Conservation Area Buffer zone/screening Road way adjoining the canal bank Heights and density of houses Outside North Warnborough settlement boundary

Supporting detailed comment provided

Thames Water

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.

Hampshire County Council Archaeology

The site of proposed development lies partly in an area of archaeological potential as identified in 'Historic Rural Settlement of Hampshire' (1999) within the historic core of the settlement at Warnborough Green. The site has not been subject to any archaeological investigation and appears to have been largely undisturbed; therefore any archaeological remains that are present are likely to be

23 well preserved. In addition to the remains of medieval Warnborough it is possible that earlier archaeological deposits relating to prehistoric activity may also be present. Although there is no indication that archaeology would present an overriding concern the assessment, recording and reporting of any archaeological deposits that might be present should be secured through the attachment of suitable conditions to any planning consent that might be granted

Hampshire County Council Education

To meet the demand for additional secondary places, a developer contribution in line with the County Council's Developer Contributions Policy is required.

Hampshire County Council Highways

The highways comments on this application should be made by the District Council's own engineers due to the size of the application being below that of the Agency threshold and agreement.

Hampshire County Council Countryside Planning

Countryside Planning have no objection and welcome the proposal to strengthen the screening between the Basingstoke Canal and the development to retain the rural character of the towpath.

Hampshire County Council Minerals and Waste

The proposed site is located within a Minerals Consultation Area (MCA) which has been defined to safeguard underlying resources of sand and gravel. However, as the estimated quantity of mineral that would be sterilised by this development is not sufficient enough to warrant prior extraction, we raise no objection to this application.

North East Hampshire Architects Panel

The Panel first reviewed the proposal in August 2014. Many of the comments raised then have been taken on board which is welcomed: it has improved. The Panel have stated that the detailing is very important and ask that this is conditioned with possibly the panel to review the condition discharge application. The Panel consider it a shame that the scheme hasn't taken full advantage of its canal setting. There could have been mooring positions, wharf houses etc: a missed opportunity for a scheme which is more unique. Introduction of the green spaces is great.

Internal

Biodiversity Officer

I have no objection to this application on the grounds of biodiversity subject to the further survey work being carried out and the mitigation measures being outlined in an Ecological Management Plan (EMP) which should be submitted to and agreed with the local authority before any works can begin. Detailed comments also provided.

Conservation/Listed Buildings Officer

No objection subject to suitable conditions. The overall of the design and layout is well conceived and is in keeping with the character of the area. The orientation and private spaces have been detailed to provide a scheme that is well delivered. The street elevation run of plots are appropriate in scale and

24 height and front the road, as well as turning the corner naturally. The dormer windows on all properties are larger than that which is normally acceptable. The architectural hierarchy should have the windows, reducing in size. A smaller dormer of the same pitched roof design would be considered acceptable. Plot 16, has an awkward roof design, where the drop in the apex of the roof and chimney and drain pipe are all out of alignment. Overall, the mix of materials, design of the buildings and the layout are all considered to be in keeping with the surrounding area and conservation area. If possible a reduction in the number of units would be desirable.

Conservation Consultant (revised comments January 2015)

The main issues with the original proposals were as follows:

Site layout and views - in particular density, proximity to the canal corridor and views from/to the canal; Impacts on the setting of listed buildings - particularly with regards to The Cat (Grade II listed building); Design - particularly scale, form and detailing

It is apparent that the eastern side of the Hook Road is characterised by a higher density of historic development, albeit aligned along the road frontage, which is in sharp contrast to the more rural setting on the western side. There has already been some level of modern development to the rear of properties along this part of Hook Road, e.g. the Pumping Station and Barley House. The revised layout for the southern part of the site has reduced the overall density of the proposed development. The removal of Plots 11 and 12 on the central eastern side of the site and the removal of one detached building along the Hook Road frontage allows better inter-connected views between the canal and listed buildings along the Hook Road. This also better preserves the sense of open space that is an important part of the character of this part of the North Warnborough Conservation Area. The removal of the three plots from the scheme is also a step towards a more dispersed pattern of development which is more in keeping with the established form of the village.

The setting back of Plots 1 - 7 in a similar manner to Castle Bridge Cottages will reduce visual impacts in long views on the approach towards the site from the south. The gap between Plots 4-5 and Plots 6-7 helps to break up the massing of the proposed row of cottages.

Plots 31 to 33 have been set back from the canal which, along with the more modest scale and design of these buildings, will result in a less overbearing impact on the canal-side setting.

The removal of a detached house at the southern end of the proposed Hook Road street elevation (formerly Plot 8) and the repositioning of the rows of cottages (Plots 2-7) southwards affords a greater sense of open space than was proposed in the original layout for this scheme. Together with the removal of the former Plots 11 and 12, this amendment allows better inter-connected views between The Cat and the canal corridor and preserves, to a certain extent, the open, rural setting of the listed building to the east.

The main issues with the design of some of the proposed buildings were as follows:

the unbalanced ratio of wall to roof of former Plots 2 and 8 resulting in overly bulky roofs; the overly dominant scale and detailing of dwellings along the canal corridor; and detailing of the more prominent buildings.

The designs for Plots 12, 20, and 21 are an improvement on the original proposal, with more modest proportions and details that are more in keeping with the rural character of the canal corridor. 25

Overall the scale, proportions and detailing of the proposed dwellings, particularly the prominent buildings along Hook Road and the canal corridor, are much improved and make better reference to the established character of the North Warnborough Conservation Area.

In summary, this is a much improved scheme which addresses the initial concerns (listed above) relating to harmful impacts on the character and appearance of the North Warnborough Conservation Area and the setting of listed buildings. The existing open space between Hook Road and the canal corridor is now a much more prominent feature of the proposed development which will preserve views and the open character of this part of the conservation area. The form, scale and detailing of the proposed buildings are also more in keeping with the established character of the conservation area. Subject to details and materials, the proposals are now considered to be acceptable.

Environmental Health

Environmental Health (EH) is satisfied with the scope and nature of the Phase Site 'Desk Study Report' (Ground and Water Ltd, February 2014) subject to suitable conditions. EH request that the recommended acoustic barrier, designed to protect plots 1/3b, 2/2b and 4/4b be conditioned so as to protect the prospective occupants from adverse health impacts due to noise.

External Flood Risk Consultant

The revised independent drainage report (Stilwell Partnership, January 2015) sets out the following conclusion:

The FRA (Revision Final 02) is a professionally prepared assessment of the site and the development. The comments from Revision 1 of this report have been noted and addressed. Some aspects of the strategy will be taken forward onto detailed design stage and may be expressed as a planning condition, such as:

Details of the land drainage / overland flows in the surface water drainage strategy Details of the groundwater monitoring program Details of the Thames Water Impact Assessment Details of the maintenance regime

Highways

No highway objection. Further detailed comment provided.

Housing

The affordable housing mix and financial contribution of £14,436.17 is acceptable.

Leisure

A developer contribution is requested towards Hart District Council leisure infrastructure.

Tree Officer (revised comments)

I have no objection to the development on Arboricultural grounds. There appears to be little impact upon retained trees and where there is an impact, it has been suitably accounted for and addressed 26 through suitable conditions.

NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS

67 letters of observation were received, of which 64 were letters of objection and 3 were letters of support. For reference, where individuals submitted multiple letters of objection these were taken as one objection.

The letters of objection raised the following key issues:-

Flood risk Inadequate foul water drainage Impact on local highways and junctions Highway safety Impact on the setting of listed buildings Impact on the setting of the North Warnborough Conservation Area Impact on the setting of the Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area Impact on the Basingstoke Canal SSSI Inappropriate design Impact on local infrastructure Loss of biodiversity Loss of open space Impact on the amenity of existing residents Noise and disturbance Impact on trees The information provided in the application is misleading and/or incomplete The second period of public consultation was evasive

The letters of support raised the following key issues:-

New homes, particularly affordable homes, are needed in North Warnborough Voted the top site in the Odiham Parish Council Neighbourhood Survey in 2013 No flooding issues just badly maintained ditches Various examples of recent backland development adjacent to the application site

POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES

Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006

GEN1 - General policy for development

GEN3 - General Policy for Landscape Character

GEN4 - General Design Policy

GEN9 - Contaminated Land

GEN7 - Noise sensitive development

GEN11 - Areas affected by flooding-poor drainage

27

GEN12 - Design Against Crime

CON3 - Nature conservation & local designations

CON5 - Nature conserv Species Protected

CON7 - Riverine Environments

CON8 - Trees, Woods & Hedgerows Amenity Value

CON10 - Basingstoke Canal General Policy

CON11 - Archaeological Sites & Monuments

CON13 - Conservation Areas General Policy

CON22 - Setting of Settlements and Recreation

RUR2 - Devl. in open countryside General

RUR3 - Devl. in open countryside Control

ALTG13 - Affordable Housing

T15 - Development Req New Improved Access

T16 - Improvements Made Necessary by Dev

CONSIDERATIONS

A. Principle of Development, Affordable Housing and Market Housing Mix B. Design, Landscaping and impact upon Local Heritage

i. Site Layout and Density ii. Height, Massing and Scale iii. Building Appearance and Materials iv. Landscape and Public Realm v. Impact on the Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area vi. Impact on the North Warnborough Conservation Area vii. Impact on the setting of Listed Buildings viii. Summary

C. Ecology and Trees D. Flood Risk and Foul Water Drainage E. Access, Highways, Structural integrity of the Basingstoke Canal, Vehicular Parking and Storage F. Community Infrastructure G. Other Matters

i. Archaeology ii. Climate Change iii. Contaminated Land iv. Minerals

28

v. Neighbour Amenity vi. Noise

A. Principle of Development, Affordable Housing and Market Housing Mix

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) set out the Government's planning policies for England and how they are to be applied and considered in the context of a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Crucially, where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of- date, decision takers should grant permission unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits (Para. 14). Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system (Para. 19). Recent Secretary of State decisions have confirmed that the delivery of housing supports economic growth and is a material consideration of significant weight in determining the merits of individual proposals.

The NPPF provides detailed guidance for determining housing proposals. LPAs should recognise that residential development can play an important role in ensuring the vitality of centres and set out policies to encourage residential development on appropriate sites (Para. 23). Planning decisions should aim to achieve places which promote safe, accessible and social mixed new environments (Para. 69) and ensure an integrated approach to the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services (Para. 70). Developments should be located to give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements and access to public transport (Para.35).

Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority (LPA) cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. LPAs should have a clear understanding of housing needs in their area (Para. 159). Planning should support the delivery of high quality designed new homes whilst taking full account of the environment (Para. 17). LPAs should deliver a wide choice of housing and facilitate home ownership. LPAs should plan for sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities where both local market and affordable needs are addressed (Para. 50). Housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, for example, where development in one village may support services in others nearby (Para. 55).

Saved Local Plan policy RUR2 states that development in the open countryside will not be permitted unless the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that it is specifically provided for by other policies in the Local Plan and that it does not have a significant detrimental effect on the character and setting of the countryside by virtue of its siting, size and prominence in the landscape.

Policy ALTGEN13 seeks to negotiate the proportion of affordable housing on a site by site basis based on an overall guideline target that 40% of new dwellings should be affordable taking into account, amongst others, the proximity of local services, any particular development costs and any other planning obligations which may be required in connection with the development of the site. There are various criteria relating to the tenure, location, mix (both in size and location within the market housing), and how the land should be provided.

The Council's Interim Housing Delivery Strategy (IHDS) sets out local guidance on the Council's current position regarding planning for housing within Hart. The IHDS is not a statement of policy, but this sets out planning principles which will inform decisions on planning applications for new housing. The IHDS sets out six planning principles. Planning Principle 1 sets out that the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Planning Principle 2 sets out that development will generally be permitted outside defined settlement boundaries provided that it either accords with rural policies, or is on previously developed land or is allocated for development.

29

The application site is located outside, but adjacent to, the North Warnborough settlement boundary as defined in the Hart Local Plan.

In the absence of an up to date Local Plan housing target, the Council does not have the usual starting point for determining its land supply position. The NPPF (Para. 47) is clear that Local Plans should meet the full, objectively assessed housing needs in the housing market area, as far as that is consistent with other policies. The latest information available on objectively assessed need for housing in Hart is set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA; December 2014) undertaken for Hart, Rushmoor Borough Council and Surrey Heath Borough Council. This indicates that the objectively assessed need for housing in Hart over the period 2011-2032 is 7,534 dwellings per annum (359 dwellings per annum). The latest available information from the SHMA is considered to be a reasonable basis for the purposes of a land supply calculation.

Set against the SHMA Hart District Council can demonstrate a housing land supply in excess of 5 years. This means that, whilst the Council should continue to look positively towards sustainable development, it is not obliged to approve planning permission where it is considered that for planning policy reasons the development is unacceptable.

Subject to normal development control criteria, the development of this site could make a modest contribution towards the maintenance of the current 5 year housing land supply. Therefore, unless it causes some harm to an interest of acknowledged importance, and provided that it represents a sustainable form of development the principle of the release of this site for development in this instance could be considered acceptable. Where harm is identified, the extent of this harm must be balanced against the benefits of the proposal.

In respect of economic sustainable development, whilst Hart may be able to demonstrate a housing land supply in excess of 5 years, the proposed development is consistent with the economic arm of sustainable development in that by virtue of providing approximately 10% of the annual housing land supply, it would make a modest contribution to Hart's ongoing obligation to deliver housing and facilitating development in the wider housing market area. The proposed market housing mix provides a suitable housing mix of smaller and larger dwellings in general conformity with the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (December 2014). As such, the proposal satisfies NPPF (Para. 50).

In respect of social sustainable development, the application site lies immediately adjacent to the North Warnborough settlement boundary. The application site is within 800m of the existing facilities in North Warnborough which includes a shop/petrol station, two public houses and village hall. A broad range of town centre facilities are also available in Odiham approximately one mile to the north of the site. North Warnborough, notwithstanding the recent changes in service levels in Hart, currently retains an hourly bus service which provides access to Odiham, Fleet and Hook.

The delivery of affordable housing to meet local needs would also be a positive effect of the development. In line with Housing's comments, the proposed affordable housing mix satisfies saved Local Plan policy ALT GEN13.

The proposed development therefore satisfies the economic and social aspects of sustainable development. As such, the proposal would comprise sustainable development subject to it being suitably demonstrated that it would protect and enhance the natural, built and historic environment.

As such, the proposal is in line with the NPPF subject to the proposal satisfactorily addressing the environmental element of sustainable development, which is considered in detail later in the report.

A number of letters of representation have stated that the proposal should be refused as Odiham Parish Council is undertaking a Neighbourhood Plan. The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) explains

30 how weight may be given to policies in emerging plans in line with:-

i. The stage of preparation of the emerging plan i.e. the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given ii. The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and iii. Consistency of relevant policies in the emerging plan to national planning guidance

Essentially, as only designation has happened to date, very little weight can be placed upon it. Furthermore, given no draft neighbourhood plan has been publicised, as of January 2015, the second and third criteria are not relevant at this time.

B. Design, Landscaping and impact upon Local Heritage

The NPPF is clear that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment (Para. 61). In determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design more generally in the area (Para. 63). Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions (Para. 64).

NPPF (Para. 128) states that in determining applications, LPAs should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets' importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset's conservation and any aspect of the proposal (Para.129).

Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use (Para. 134). Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Area, inter alia, and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably (Para. 137). Not all elements of a Conservation Area, inter alia, will necessarily contribute to its significance. Loss of a building or other element which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area, inter alia, should turn on whether it is or is not substantial harm, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area, inter alia, as a whole (Para. 138). LPAs should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies.

31

Saved local plan policy GEN1 permits development where, amongst other requirements, the design, scale, massing, height, materials, layout, density and prominence of the proposal is in character with the local area and sympathetic to existing dwellings and surrounding properties. Policy GEN3 states that within identified landscape character areas development will be permitted if it does not adversely affect the particular character of the landscape. Policy GEN4 is a general design policy which permits development proposals where they sustain or improve the urban design qualities of settlements derived from their layout and form, scale, character, special features or the arrangement, scale and design of buildings and spaces. Policy GEN12 states planning permission will not be granted for development which fails to incorporate appropriate provision for public safety and crime prevention within its design.

Policy CON10 states that development which would adversely affect the landscape, architectural or ecological character, setting or enjoyment of the Basingstoke Canal or which would result in the loss of important views in the vicinity of the canal will not be permitted. Policy CON13 sets out the general policy requirements for conservation areas. Policy CON17 deals with listed buildings. Policy CON22 sets out that development which would adversely affect the character or setting of a settlement, or lead to the loss of important areas of the development of open land around settlements, will not be permitted where it would fail to suitably address supporting criteria.

The Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals (March 2009) (BCCACAMP) provides design guidance for the designated area. The BBCACAMP sets out a detailed précis of the canal's characteristics relating to location and landscape setting, historic development and archaeology, spatial analysis and the buildings and structures of the conservation area. The BCCACAMP divides the conservation area into nine distinct character areas, details relating to identified issues and management proposals, and also sets out key views and vistas which include north of the Swan Bridge looking north along Hook Road to The Cat and Nevill's.

The North Warnborough Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals (March 2009) (NWCACAMP) provides design guidance for the designated area. The NWCACAMP sets out a detailed précis of North Warnborough's location and landscape setting, historic development and archaeology, urban form and fabric in terms of layout and street pattern, landscape, buildings, vistas, boundaries and the public realm. The NWCACAMP divides the conservation area into four distinct character areas. The application site is located in Character Area 3 (Hook Road and Bridge Road). The NWCACAMP addresses various management issues and sets out appropriate recommendations. The southern portion of the application site is highlighted in the NWCACAMP (pp.22) as needing improvement.

The Odiham Village Design Statement (OVDS) sets out detailed supplementary design guidance for all of Odiham Parish including North Warnborough. The OVDS should be read in conjunction with the OCAA and is a material consideration.

In line with the NPPF, the public benefits of the proposal should be weighed against the harm, whether that is substantial or not, to the designated heritage asset. The Local Plan is clear that development which would adversely affect the landscape, setting or enjoyment, inter alia, of the Basingstoke Canal, or result in the loss of important views will not be permitted.

The applicant has provided two revised design documents to support the proposal including:-

Design and Access Statement (RDAS) (December 2014) Heritage Statement (RHS) (December 2014)

The RHS should be read in conjunction with the RDAS.

The applicant has also provided a Landscape Appraisal (LA) (July 2014) and revised Landscape Strategy 32

Plan (LSP) (March 2014). The supporting Planning Statement, Arboricultural and Ecological reports are also relevant to design.

The RDAS sets out the design concept which seeks to draw on the pattern and scale of established development within North Warnborough to sit comfortably within the conservation area(s). The RDAS (pp.14) sets out the following specific key features:-

Street frontage along Hook Road A break in the street frontage which provides a vista from Hook Road through to the Basingstoke Canal Variation in building type and scale Appropriate materials

The RHS sets out an assessment of the proposals in relation to design, benefits and enhancements, views and setting of listed buildings. For example, the RHS states that the revised scheme seeks to reflect prevailing character by incorporating a reduced number of smaller dwellings along Hook Road to reflect the scale and typology of the listed Castlebridge Cottage terrace, and taking into consideration the height, scale and design of the existing townscape including the listed building Nevills.

The key design issues (site layout and density; scale, height and massing; building appearance and materials; public realm) are addressed in turn below. The impact on the local landscape, the Basingstoke Canal and North Warnborough Conservation Areas and the impact on listed buildings are then considered.

i. Site Layout and Density

The proposed site layout differentiates between the southern portion of the site which is a more dispersed form of development and the northern portion of the site, which by virtue of the proposed mews streets and compact typologies, more dense in form and character. The proposed layout in the northern portion would provide a denser townscape more akin, in plan, to that found in both historic parts of the village (North Warnborough Street) and some modern developments such as Swan Mews.

The BCCACAMP (pp.7) highlights that the canal has many active frontages. As such, the proposed orientation of dwellings towards the Basingstoke Canal is considered acceptable in principle.

Essentially, it is considered that the proposed layout articulates a coherent transition in form and density across the site. The proposal provides a suitable contrast between areas of larger detached dwellings and smaller cottages, both of which reflect the historic pattern of development in the village.

In addition, the proposed site layout accords with the general requirements of saved Local Plan policy GEN12 to provide for the surveillance of open space, houses with main living areas that look out across the street, and subject to suitable conditions, adequate street lighting.

As such, the proposed layout and related built form accords with the NPPF and saved Local Plan policies GEN1, GEN4, GEN12 and CON13. ii. Height, Massing and Scale

A number of concerns have been raised with regard to the height and massing of specific dwellings including those fronting Hook Road and the Basingstoke Canal. The proposal has revised the scale of these dwellings with the aim of better reflecting the local character and improving the relationship with nearby listed buildings. 33

The dwelling in plot one has a height of 8m; the frontage terrace dwellings (plots 2-7) along Hook Road have a maximum height to the roofline of 8.5m. Essentially, the dwellings in plots 1-7 are considered to be suitably domestic in scale and height. Whilst their height may be slightly in excess of the listed dwelling The Cat on the western side of Hook Road, given the spacing between the dwellings, is considered that the proposed built form would not have significant harm on its setting.

In line with the comments from the independent conservation consultant, the designs for the proposed dwellings which have front elevations facing the Basingstoke Canal have essentially modest proportions.

However, in line with the comments from Odiham Parish Council, it is considered that the heights of the proposed dwellings in plots 13-14 are incongruous within the proposed street scene. Amended plans have been received from the applicant that has addressed these concerns and, as such, are considered suitable.

As such, the proposed height, massing and scale, subject to suitable conditions which set out revised elevations for plots 13 and 14, inter alia, are acceptable and thus accord with the NPPF and saved Local Plan policies GEN1, GEN4 and CON13.

iii. Building Appearance and Materials

The proposal sets out a mix of building typologies incorporating detached, semi-detached and terraced houses. The proposed vernacular is also mixed and includes simply detailed cottages, more substantial detached houses and some dwellings that resemble converted agricultural buildings. Buildings providing covered parking are all subservient to the host dwelling and utilise timber cladding.

The RDAS (pp.15) states that materials have been chosen to reflect those found within the area and include soft red facing brick, painted render, plain red clay and slate roof tiles. These proposed materials appropriately reflect the existing urban fabric, as set out in the NWCACAMP, and can be secured through a suitable condition.

The RDAS (pp.15) also states that the proposed windows are generally to be white painted timber. The NWCACAMP highlights (pp.25) that many unlisted houses, which are otherwise positive, have inappropriate windows or doors. As such, all of the proposed dwelling should have white painted timber windows. The juxtaposition of some dwellings with painted timber windows with some having UPVC windows could be particularly incongruous. Satisfactory fenestration, including doors, can be secured through a suitable condition.

As such, the proposed building appearance, subject to suitable conditions, accords with NPPF and saved Local Plan policies GEN1, GEN4 and CON13.

iv. Landscape and Public Realm

The application site is well-enclosed within the wider landscape. The site can mainly be seen only in relatively close range views from Hook Road, from adjoining private houses and gardens, or in views, often glimpsed through dense vegetation, from the Basingstoke Canal. By virtue of this well-enclosed character, it is considered that the proposal would not result in any harm to the wider Whitewater Valley landscape.

The supporting Landscape Assessment (LA) sets out that the proposed landscape strategy provides for the retention of the greater part of the existing boundary vegetation and that this would form the

34 starting point for the creation of a new landscaping framework which emphasises providing a suitable boundary between the development and the Basingstoke Canal and new native species planting on boundaries and internal spaces.

In line with the comments from HCC Countryside Service, by virtue of the proposed landscape strategy, the proposal would strengthen the screening between the Basingstoke Canal and the development and thus retain the rural character of the towpath.

The NWCACAMP (pp.16) sets out that along the main road through the village boundaries are often marked by usually fairly low (around one metre) brick walls. The street lighting in the conservation area is provided by 'heritage' style black lanterns on cast iron columns which is generally in keeping with the character of the area and matches the style of the bus shelters on Hook Road

It is proposed that the boundary treatments would comprise fencing and hedging. The respective location of these treatments within the site is not set out. It is considered that for the proposal to successfully integrate within the North Warnborough Conservation Area, close regard has to be had to the proposed boundary treatments and, as such, the lack of any particular strategy with regard to boundary design is disappointing. However, it is considered that suitable boundaries can be secured through suitable conditions.

Likewise, given the strong steer in the NWCACAMP, it should be within the gift of the applicants to propose suitably designed street lighting. Again, the proposal is lacking sufficient detail but it is considered that suitable lighting can be secured through a condition.

The proposed road materials include coloured and porous tarmacadam, block paviors and gravel. It is considered that these are acceptable in principle and can be secured through a suitable hard landscaping condition.

Furthermore, in light of the comments from the NE Hampshire Architects Panel, it is considered that the layout does not lend itself to the introduction of structures adjacent to the canal.

As such, the proposed landscaping and public realm, subject to suitable conditions, accords with the NPPF and saved Local Plan policies GEN1, GEN4, CON7, CON10 and CON13.

v. Impact upon the Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area

The BCCACAMP (pp.6) sets out whilst the waterway, towpath and bridges have a relatively consistent character throughout the canal's passage through Hart District, the surroundings of the canal provide changes in character. The canal's path is through both rural and urban environments and makes a significant positive contribution to both.

The proposal would, clearly, have an urbanising effect on the setting of the Basingstoke Canal and thus change the character of this area by introducing new built form. For example, views of the site from the Basingstoke Canal towpath would change from that of semi-rural views of North Warnborough, to that of a settlement edge by virtue of the proposed built form and access road.

However, in line with the BCCACAMP, it is considered that, in principle, the proposal would not have substantial harm on the setting of the Basingstoke Canal by virtue of being residential development. The BCCACAMP (pp.8) is clear that new developments should be of an appropriate scale and design including ancillary buildings and associated landscaping

In line with the comments set out above, it is considered that the proposed design and landscaping

35 would not result in significant harm to the Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area. The proposed dwellings are domestic in scale and suitable materials can be secured through conditions. Orientating the dwellings with front elevations (plots 9, 11, 12, 20 & 21) towards the Basingstoke Canal is considered a more positive visual relationship than one of rear boundaries, thereby avoiding unsightly treatments and elevated views from the towpath into gardens with domestic paraphernalia.

As such, subject to suitable conditions, the proposal would not be unduly prominent from the towpath and, as such, the landscape, architectural character and recreational value of the Basingstoke Canal would not be adversely affected.

Therefore, the proposal, subject to relevant conditions, accords with the NPPF and saved Local Plan policies CON10 and CON13.

vi. Impact upon the North Warnborough Conservation Area

The key contribution that the application site makes to the North Warnborough Conservation Area is the view across the southern portion of the site from the Basingstoke Canal to Hook Road. This view is also highlighted in the Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area Townscape Appraisal Map 2. However, views across this area are currently restricted by virtue of the dense vegetation (more so in summer) and the fencing parallel to Hook Road. As such, the quality of that vista is dependent on suitable landscaping, which could be secured through a suitable condition.

Essentially, by virtue of the proposed open space in the southern portion of the site, the vista would be retained. However, the quality of that vista is dependent on suitable landscaping, which (in line with comments above) would be secured through a suitable condition.

The independent conservation consultant concluded that the revised scheme (December 2014) has addressed the initial concerns raised relating to harmful impacts on the character and appearance of the North Warnborough Conservation Area. The existing open space between Hook Road and the canal corridor is now a much more prominent feature of the proposed development and will preserve the prescribed view in the NWCACAMP. The proposed form, scale and detailing of the proposed buildings are also more in keeping with the established character of the North Warnborough Conservation Area.

As such, subject to suitable conditions, the proposal would have an acceptable relationship with the North Warnborough Conservation Area.

Furthermore, by virtue of this acceptable relationship with the North Warnborough Conservation Area, it is considered that the proposal would not adversely affect the setting of the settlement of North Warnborough.

Therefore, the proposal, subject to relevant conditions, accords with the NPPF and saved Local Plan policies CON13 and CON22.

vii. Impact upon the setting of Listed Buildings

The NWCACAMP Townscape Appraisal Map sets out the location of adjacent listed buildings. Those listed buildings considered to have a close relationship with the application site include:-

Nevills House and the related curtilage listed buildings The Granary and The Bakery; The Cat which is directly opposite the southern portion of the application site and the proposed vehicular access; 36

Castle Bridge Cottages which comprise a number of distinct listed houses

In line with the Appeal Decision for Barley House (HDC Ref: 08/01189/FUL) it is considered that the land to the rear of The Granary and The Bakery does not play a significant part in creating the setting of the main listed building, the Grade II listed Nevills House. This includes both Barley House and its curtilage, and the northern portion of the application site.

The proposal includes seven two-bedroom dwellings fronting Hook Road including one detached house, two terraces of four and two cottages respectively. Essentially, the proposed dwellings would be subservient in formality, scale and massing to Nevills House and, as such, would preserve the setting of that listed building.

The open space opposite The Cat on Hook Road allows long views out of the village, bringing the countryside into the centre of the village, notwithstanding its existing untidy and overgrown state. The Cat itself was built in the 17th century (the framing possibly 15th century) and was once a public house.

As set out, the proposed frontage dwellings have a height to roof ridgeline of between 8 and 8.5m. Essentially, the difference in height between the proposed dwellings and The Cat is not considered to be significant. The dwelling in plot 1, with a height to roof ridgeline of 8m, is clearly subservient overall massing to both The Cat and the adjacent new dwelling. For reference, adjacent to The Cat, in its former curtilage, is a new dwelling, which following subsequent applications for minor amendments, has a height to roof ridgeline of 7.8m.

Whilst the massing of the proposed terraces is more substantial, given the spacing between them, by virtue of Hook Road, it is considered that they would not result in a cramped setting for The Cat, particularly when the retained open space directly opposite is taken into account.

In summary, the siting and design of the proposed frontage dwellings on Hook Road would not result in an unacceptable impact on the setting of The Cat by virtue of their modest scale and footprint.

The development within the northern portion of the site very well concealed from view from Hook Road given the substantial massing of the listed Castlebridge Cottages and the unlisted former Chilli Pad (formerly Jolly Miller) public house. Castlebridge Cottages are timber-framed and date to the 15th and 16th centuries. The public house, whilst unlisted, was built in the early 20th century and has a notable mock Tudor vernacular and is identified in the NWCACAMP as a positive building.

Essentially, given the distance between Castlebridge Cottages and the boundary of the northern portion of the application site, approximately 20-25m, and the permitted scheme for residential development in the paddock between them (HDC Ref: 12/00787/FUL), it is considered that the proposal would not result in a cramped setting for them, nor would the siting and design of the proposed house result in an unacceptable erosion of amenity space.

However, as set out, it is considered that the proposed elevations for the dwellings in plots 13 and 14 needs substantial revision, to both better reflect the internal street scene and have a more appropriate relationship in terms of height and massing, with Nevills House and the southern portion of Castlebridge Cottages.

As such, subject to suitable conditions, the proposal accords with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 s.66(1) and NPPF (Para. 131) viii. Summary

The proposal would, undoubtedly, urbanise the application site. It would clearly reduce the scale of the

37 open space fronting onto Hook Road, which is an element that makes a positive contribution to the North Warnborough Conservation Area. However, irrespective of whether site is poorly maintained or not, the existing open space is a poor vista that does not provide any indication to the casual observer that the Basingstoke Canal is closely related to this part of the village. Essentially, what would be lost in scale would, on balance, be outweighed by an overall improvement in the quality of the environment by virtue of a suitably landscaped and publicly accessible route through to the canal towpath.

The proposal would also introduce a large element of 'backland' development into the North Warnborough Conservation Area at odds with the historic linear form of development. However, there are several existing examples of backland development within the conservation area north of the canal including Swan Mews, Barley House and the permitted scheme to the rear of Castlebridge Cottages.

However, given the significant massing of both the former Chilli Pad public house and Castlebridge Cottages, the impact on the Hook Road street scene of development in the northern portion of the site would be minimal. The proposed frontage terrace utilises a traditional appearance in line with many existing cottages in North Warnborough.

The proposal would, undoubtedly, result in built form in closer proximity to the Basingstoke Canal. However, most of the existing views of the application are glimpsed, particularly in summer, through dense native vegetation. The BCCACAMP sets out that throughout its path through Hart the canal is a key part of both rural landscapes and urban townscapes. In principle, the proposal would not introduce, by virtue of residential dwellings, an alien form of development into the Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area.

The revised proposal has been reviewed by both the North Hampshire Architects Panel and the independent conservation consultant who both consider that the design is now acceptable.

However, it is considered that whilst the NPPF is clear that LPAs should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas, with the aim of enhancing or better reveal their significance, this would only be achieved in this instance, given the complexity of the site, through very close subsequent attention to materials and landscaping when discharging conditions.

As such, it is considered that subject to suitable design and landscaping conditions, inter alia, the proposal could be integrated within both the Basingstoke Canal and North Warnborough conservation areas without substantial harm to the significance of both the North Warnborough and Basingstoke Canal conservation areas, and the setting of relevant local listed buildings included The Cat, Nevills House and Castlebridge Cottages.

Therefore, subject to suitable conditions, the proposal accords with the NPPF and saved Local Plan policies GEN1, GEN3, GEN4, GEN12, CON7, CON10, CON13, CON17, CON22 and RUR3.

C. Ecology and Trees

Saved Local Plan policy CON5 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have a significant adverse effect on plant or animal species or their habitats protected by law unless suitable conditions or legal agreements are in place. Policy CON7 states that development proposals which would have a significant adverse affect on the nature conservation, landscape or recreational value of riverine environments will not be permitted. Policy CON8 states that where development is proposed which would affect trees, woodlands or hedgerows of significant landscape or amenity value planning permission will only be granted if these features are shown to be capable of being retained in the longer term.

38

The Environment Agency considers that the proposed development will be acceptable subject to a condition which addresses the detail of the proposed 10 metre buffer zone. In line with the view of Natural England, the proposal would not result in significant harm to the Basingstoke Canal SSSI.

The Biodiversity Officer also considers that the proposed development would be acceptable subject to further bat and reptile survey work to establish the exact mitigation requirements.

In line with NPPF (Para. 118) the proposal also has potential to provide net gains in biodiversity. This could include features such as bat bricks and bat boxes, and be secured through a suitable condition. It is also considered that given the proximity of the site to the Basingstoke Canal, the potential of the proposed open space for improving local biodiversity has not been considered by the applicant. Suitable improvements could also be addressed through a condition.

The supporting Protected Species Survey Report also highlights that light levels within the 10m buffer zones are not raised significantly, and therefore recommends a lighting strategy. This is considered appropriate and can be secured through a suitable condition.

The arboricultural survey has identified several trees of moderate quality (Category B) that are of sufficient importance to influence the design of a development scheme, while remaining trees within the site are of low quality (Category C) or are unsuitable for retention. There are no high quality (Category A) trees. The Tree Officer raises no objection to the proposal subject to suitable conditions.

As such, subject to suitable conditions, the proposal satisfies the NPPF and saved Local Plan policies CON5 and CON8.

D. Flood Risk and Foul Drainage

The NPPF (Para. 103) is clear that when determining planning applications LPAs should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere.

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

The application site, and adjacent sites, suffers from localised surface water flooding. Various photographs have been forwarded to the Council from local residents which record prior events. The application site is also in an area with a relatively high water table (approximately 1.2m below the surface). For reference, it should be noted that the application site does not lie within a fluvial flood zone, as defined by the Environment Agency (EA), it does lie nearby to many properties particularly those to the north-west of the application site that front Hook Road, within EA Flood Zone 2 and 3. As such, these properties will remain at risk of flooding irrespective of any nearby development and associated works or otherwise, by virtue of their proximity to the River Whitewater, inter alia.

Notwithstanding this, given the local context, the proposal must therefore ensure that the development would increase flood risk either on the site or elsewhere in the local area by setting out an appropriate and deliverable drainage strategy.

In line with NPPF requirements, the applicant provided a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) which was subject to review by an independent drainage consultant (Stilwell Partnership). In light of comment from Stilwell and Officers, a revised FRA (December 2014) and supporting drainage strategy were forwarded to the Council. Stilwell's response (January 2015) to the revised FRA is set out in Appendix A.

The revised FRA sets out a surface water drainage strategy (Section 5.0; pp.19-32) which comprises a

39 hybrid solution which proposes to dispose the surface water runoff from the site using shallow crates, pervious pavements, detention basins and the existing ditches. The outflows would be restricted by appropriate devices to ‘greenfield’ discharge rates.

Stilwell conclude (Para. 4.8) that, in principle, this proposed approach of restricting surface water run-off from the site to greenfield rates is appropriate for the development and can be managed through suitable conditions.

The proposed strategy to have the ditch re-profiled to improve hydraulic capacity and flow is appropriate. However, Stilwell (Para. 4.22) is minded that the ditch profile could be upgraded further to allow for more attenuation and flood compensation within the site which could be secured through a suitable condition. Details of the overland flows, groundwater monitoring programme and maintenance regime could be secured through suitable conditions. For reference, the two proposed attenuation ponds will need to be designed with suitable protective membranes to ensure that it does not flood with groundwater.

Essentially, in line with the conclusions and recommendations of the Stilwell Report it is considered that the proposed surface water strategy within the application site is satisfactory, subject to suitable conditions.

However, the NPPF (Para. 100) is clear that new development should not increase flood risk elsewhere. The proposal must demonstrate that it would not increase flood risk to all properties east of Hook Road, north and west of the application site.

The applicant has provided an Addendum to the revised FRA which summarises a proposed off-site drainage solution. For reference, beyond the site the ditch flows through a series of open and closed culverts on third party land and thence through a well vegetated, shallow open ditch before discharging into the River Whitewater. The ditch is not currently well maintained and is shallow.

For the proposal to demonstrate that the off-site drainage solution, this ditch will need to be upgraded with suitable works. These works will need to be undertaken and maintained in perpetuity. This can be controlled by a suitable condition.

In addition, all off-site drainage works must take account of the fact that adjacent to the application site is a permitted scheme for four residential dwellings (HDC Ref: 12/00787/FUL) and a live scheme for three residential dwellings (HDC Ref: 14/02463/FUL) which would both appear to be reliant on the same ditch for surface water drainage. It is also understood the land between the application site and the former Chilli Pad public house is in the ownership of the former.

As such, any proposed off-site works should be designed to accommodate a minimum of 40 residential dwellings, rather than just the 33 proposed in this application. The applicant has acknowledged this in principle and has proposed to progress further discussions with the promoters of the adjacent scheme (14/02463/FUL).

Essentially, in line with the conclusions and recommendations of the Stilwell Report it is considered that the proposed surface water strategy for the application site is satisfactory subject to suitable conditions, but that the proposal would only be NPPF compliant with a suitable off-site drainage strategy which clearly demonstrates that the proposal would not exacerbate surface water flooding elsewhere. Given that the Council and an adjacent landowner also currently pursuing a residential scheme owns a significant proportion of the land upon which a suitable off-site drainage solution could be found, that there is a scope for this to be agreed through a 'Grampian' style condition.

The supporting Sustainable Construction Supplementary Planning Statement (July 2014) states that

40 water butts will be installed in residential gardens to reduce surface runoff and provide a sustainable resource for water use in gardens. This can be secured through a suitable condition.

It is noted that Thames Water has raised concerns regarding the ability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the development. In addition, a number of letters of observation have highlighted recent issues (December 2014) with the operation of the pumping station adjacent to the site.

Accordingly a 'Grampian Style' condition is suggested to address foul water drainage. This is acceptable to Thames Water.

As such, with regard to flood risk and foul drainage, and subject to suitable conditions, the proposal accords with the NPPF and saved Local Plan policy GEN1 and GEN11.

E. Access, Highways, Structural integrity of the Basingstoke Canal, Vehicular Parking and Storage

Saved Local Plan policy GEN1 permits development where there would be adequate arrangements on site for access, servicing or the parking of vehicles. Policy T15 seeks to ensure that development requiring new or improved access will be permitted subject to criteria. Policy T16 seeks planning obligations for contributions to transportation initiatives where necessary and reasonably related in scale and kind.

Vehicular Access

In line with the Highway Officer's comments, the proposed vehicular access on the Hook Road, given that it has not been identified as an accident black spot, is considered to be appropriate.

Pedestrian Access

The proposal sets out the creation of two new pedestrian accesses from the application site to the Basingstoke Canal towpath. However, the level of detail provided is insubstantial and as a result it is not clear what form (gradient, surface materials) these proposed access routes would take.

As such, in line with the comments from Odiham Parish Council, it is considered appropriate to condition these proposed accesses as to ensure suitable footpaths that are accessible by all.

Highway Network and Structural integrity of the Basingstoke Canal

The proposal would increase the number of multi-modal trips. The impact on the local highway network would therefore not be significant.

In line with the Highway Officer's comments, the proposed internal street design suitably reflects the national guidance set out in Manual for Streets and as such is considered acceptable. The relationship between the proposed access road to the rear of Barley House and the Basingstoke Canal is considered below.

The applicant has submitted revised swept path analysis for 6m and 10.6m vehicles and, as such, in line with the Highway Officer's, the proposal is satisfactory.

The proposal includes a new access road to be constructed in the area between Barley House and the

41

Basingstoke Canal which links the southern and northern portions of the site. Without a suitable link road here, the proposal could not demonstrate that the northern portion of the application site has suitable vehicular access. The Basingstoke Canal Authority, Basingstoke Canal Society and Odiham Parish Council have objected to the proposal in light of the potential impact on the structural integrity of the Basingstoke Canal by the proposed access road.

The applicant has provided two plans to support the proposal including:-

Link Road Detail (Floyd Matcham, March 2014) (Ref: FMH 091 L.002) Cross Section of Proposed Link Road (Stuart Michael Associates, September 2014) (Ref: 4854.001)

The applicant has stated in correspondence that the proposed road would not exert pressure on the canal bank or the canal bed and that no retaining structure will be required adjacent to the canal embankment.

Essentially, it considered that the design for the proposed link road must evaluated by suitably qualified independent engineers to determine whether there is any significant impact on the structural integrity of the Basingstoke Canal. This can be secured through a suitable condition, with the cost of the evaluation born by the applicants and secured through a suitable legal agreement.

Vehicular Parking

The supporting Site Layout Parking Plan (SLPP) sets out that the proposal would provide 96 vehicular parking spaces of which 78 would be allocated and 18 unallocated (visitor) spaces. Given the proposed housing mix, this is in line with the Hart Parking Provision Interim Guidance (August 2008).

The design of the proposed allocated parking is considered to strike a good balance between being within close proximity to the dwellings they serve and other considerations. For example, the parking for proposed units 2 to 7 is located in a courtyard to the rear and the parking for units 12, 20 and 21 is to the side of the dwellings away from the frontage with the Basingstoke Canal.

Whilst the Tree Officer has raised no objections, the proposed parking for units 10, 11 and 15-17 includes a garage and surface spaces within the root protection area of trees. Appropriate designs can be secured through suitable conditions.

As such, in terms of overall vehicular parking provision and design, the proposal is acceptable.

Refuse and Cycle Storage

Each of the proposed plots, with the exception of plots 29 and 30, has rear gardens with side or rear pedestrian access. Plots 15-17 and 25-28 each have a communal bin and cycle storage area, and plots 2-7 have a separate bin collection point. Plots 29 and 30 have a shared bin and cycle storage area located between the two dwellings.

As such, the proposal sets out adequate provision of refuse and cycle storage.

Therefore, the proposal is in line with saved Local Plan policies GEN1 and T15 abd the Hart Parking Provision Interim Guidance (August 2008).

F. Community Infrastructure

Members are referred to Annex A to this report for the policy justifications for contributions towards 42

Community Infrastructure and the SPA.

Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area

The site lies beyond 5km from the nearest part of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area and consequently the development does not need to provide suitable mitigation.

Primary Education

The site lies within the catchment for Buryfields Infant School and Mayhill Junior School. No contributions towards primary schools in Odiham are currently sought.

Secondary Education

The site lies within the catchment for the Robert May secondary school. In line with the Hart Community Infrastructure Policy, due to the current shortage of school places it is appropriate to seek a contribution of £143,545.

District Leisure

At a District level the site lies in an area where visitor data indicates that future occupants would be likely to visit the Fleet Leisure Centre, Basingstoke Canal and Odiham Common. As such, a contribution of £123,306 should be sought to mitigate the effects of the development on district (strategic) leisure and open space provision.

Parish Leisure

At a Parish level, two projects have been identified: provision of new allotments in the Parish with associated parking and enhancements to the North Warnborough recreation ground play areas. As such, a contribution of £33,089 should be sought to mitigate the effects of the development on parish leisure and open space provision.

Transport

As the Highways Officer has advised that as the proposed development would create additional vehicular movements, a contribution of £127,518 should be sought.

As of 27 February 2015, a suitable s106 planning obligation had not been completed.

G. Other Matters

i. Archaeology

Policy CON11 sets out that development that would adversely affect a sites of archaeological importance, or its setting, will not be permitted.

HCC have confirmed that the application site lies partly in an area of archaeological potential, has not hitherto been subject to any archaeological investigation and appears to have been largely undisturbed. Suitable assessment, recording and reporting of any archaeological deposits can be secured through suitable conditions.

As such, subject to suitable conditions, the proposal accords with saved Local Plan CON11.

43

ii. Climate Change

NPPF (Para. 93) states that planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy. The level 3 code for sustainable homes energy standard is now incorporated in the building regulations therefore there is no need to repeat this through a planning condition.

iii. Contaminated Land

Policy GEN9 permits development on land that has either been contaminated or is believed to be contaminated, subject to supporting criteria.

Environmental Health has confirmed their satisfaction with the supporting Site Survey Report (Ground & Water Ltd, February 2014).

As such, subject to suitable conditions, the proposal accords with saved Local Plan GEN9.

iv. Minerals

NPPF sets out that LPAs should give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction.

HCC Minerals and Waste have confirmed that they raise no objection to principle of development on the site.

v. Neighbour Amenity

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

Essentially, given the separation distances, existing and proposed planting, and the orientation of existing and proposed dwellings, it is considered that the proposal would not lead to any significant impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings by virtue of loss of light or overlooking.

The issue of potential disturbance and loss of amenity from construction work has been raised. Conditions relating to the burning of demolition materials, hours of construction and demolition, hours of plant machinery use and noise from construction activity are appropriate.

It is also appropriate to impose a condition restricting the commencement of development until a Construction Method Statement, which addresses these issues and others, has been submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. It is also recommended that an additional informative is added that sets out that the Local Planning Authority would welcome a Construction Method Statement that is jointly prepared by the applicants in conjunction with the site promoters of any adjacent residential development proposals.

As such, it is considered that, subject to suitable conditions, the proposal accords with saved local plan policy GEN1.

vi. Noise

Policy GEN7 sets out that development for noise sensitive uses will only be permitted where adequate

44 measures are taken for noise amelioration.

The supporting Environmental Noise Survey and Noise Impact Assessment Report (Ref: 20329/EIA1 Revision 1) (August 2014) sets out the proposed dwellings facing Hook Road (plots 1-7) have daytime noise levels in excess of relevant guidance. The proposed mitigation includes a suitable acoustic barrier constructed of a dense material such as bricks with no gaps or acoustic fencing of at least 2 metres in height.

Clearly, the proposed mitigation would not be appropriate within the Hook Road street scene. As such, suitable noise mitigation will need to be designed into the frontage dwellings whilst retaining their proposed design. This can be secured through a suitable condition.

As such, it is considered that, subject to suitable conditions, the proposal accords with saved local plan policy GEN7.

CONCLUSION

The site lies adjacent to the settlement of North Warnborough in open countryside and thus development is contrary to the development plan. While the housing policies are up to date because the Council has a 5 year supply of housing land, the Local Plan itself is of a reasonable vintage and pre-dates the NPPF. The development plan housing policies weigh against the development.

The proposed development would provide 33 residential dwellings and contribute towards the housing need across the Strategic Housing Market Area. The proposal offers a suitable housing mix including a substantial proportion of affordable homes and smaller private homes.

The site access arrangements are acceptable and there would be sufficient on-site parking and storage. The proposal would also provide two new pedestrian routes to the Basingstoke Canal towpath. Provided that the legal agreement is completed there would be sufficient mitigation for the proposal’s impact on community infrastructure.

It is considered that there would be no significant impact on the amenity of future residents or the occupiers of neighbouring buildings, trees, archaeological remains, local ecology, land contamination, lighting and noise subject to suitable conditions.

The proposal would, clearly, urbanise the view from the Basingstoke Canal towpath across the site. However, these views are mostly glimpsed through dense vegetation and long-distance views into the site are minimal. There would be no significant harm to the Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area, the setting of North Warnborough and the wider landscape.

The proposal would narrow the open gap of the eastern side of Hook Road. However, existing views across the site from Hook Road are, essentially, of a poor quality. For example, it is not possible to discern the Basingstoke Canal from Hook Road. The reduction in size of the gap on the eastern side of Hook Road could be off-set by improvements to the overall quality of this open space by virtue of landscaping to be secured through suitable conditions.

The proposal would also introduce a large ‘backland’ development into the, essentially, linear form of the North Warnborough Conservation Area north of the Basingstoke Canal. However, there are recent backland developments in North Warnborough including Swan Mews and other smaller permitted schemes. By virtue of the significant massing of Castlebridge Cottages and the former Chilli Pad public house, and the modestly scaled frontage dwellings (plots 1-7), it is considered that the proposal would not result in significant harm to the Hook Road street scene.

45

The proposed design, with the exception of the dwelling in plots 13 and 14, satisfies the North Warnborough Conservation Area Appraisal and Odiham Design Guidance in terms of layout, scale, massing, height, landscaping, public real, built appearance and materials. Appropriate materials and detailing can be secured through suitable conditions. The proposed elevations for the dwellings in plots 13 and 14 need moderate rather than substantial revision and, as such, can be secured through suitable conditions.

The proposal would not, by virtue of its design, result in significant harm to the setting of nearby listed buildings. As such, there would be no significant harm to the North Warnborough Conservation Area

Essentially, the proposal has sought to balance the sometimes conflicting demands of a development with form and fabric that suitably reflects local heritage designations whilst suitably addressing other relevant policy criteria. Overall, for the reasons given, the proposal would not result in significant harm to built environment.

The application site is clearly subject to a degree of surface water flooding. Essentially, the proposal would be acceptable only subject to suitable off-site drainage works which can be secured through suitable conditions. Without these off-site works the proposal would increase flood risk elsewhere and thus fail to satisfy NPPF (Para. 103).

Thames Water has indicated insufficient capacity at the local pumping station and thus in line with the approach taken elsewhere, a suitable ‘Grampian’ condition should be imposed in order to facilitate an appropriate technical solution.

Taken together, it is concluded that in line with the NPPF (Para. 134), the benefits of developing the site fall in favour of developing this sustainably located site subject to it addressing relevant material considerations.

Therefore, the proposed development, subject to suitable conditions, represents sustainable development and complies with the relevant saved policies of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 s.66(1), National Planning Policy Framework, the Hart Local Plan and the Hart Interim Housing Delivery Strategy.

RECOMMENDATION A -

The application be referred to Full Council with a recommendation that the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to grant permission subject to the prior completion of an appropriate legal agreement to include the following:-

a) Payment of appropriate infrastructure contributions towards Leisure (District and Parish), Secondary Education and Highways; b) Provision of Affordable Housing including a suitable financial contribution towards off-site Affordable Housing; and c) Maintenance of all open space

AND subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the

46

date of this permission.

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

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the following submitted plans:

Site Plan (Ref: 2014032/P01G) Accommodation Schedule (12 December 2014) Affordable Housing Schedule and Statement (December 2014) Affordable Housing Plan (Ref: 2014032/P26b) Combined Plan Plot 1 (Ref: 2014032/P02b) Combined Plan Plots 2-7 (Ref: 2014032/P03a) Combined Plan Plots 2-7 (Ref: 2014032/P04a) Combined Plan Plots 8-9 (Ref: 2014032/P05a) Combined Plan Plot 9 (Ref: 2014032/P06a) Combined Plan Plots 10-11 (Ref: 2014032/P09a) Combined Plan Plots 10-11 (Ref: 2014032/P10a) Combined Plan Plots 12-14 (Ref: 2014032/P11c) Combined Plan Plots 12-14 (Ref: 2014032/P12c) Combined Plan Plots 15-19 (Ref: 2014032/P13a) Elevations Plots 15-19 (Ref: 2014032/P14a) Combined Plan Plots 20-21 (Ref: 2014032/P15a) Combined Plan Plots 21-28 (Ref: 2014032/P16a) Elevations Plots 22-28 (Ref: 2014032/P17a) Combined Plan 29-33 (Ref: 2014032/P18a) Elevations Plots 29-33 (Ref: 2014032/P19a) Parking Plan (Ref: 2014032/P25c)

Reason To give certainty as to the development hereby permitted.

3 Development shall not commence until a drainage strategy detailing necessary off-site surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker.

This includes appropriately scaled, designed and landscaped improvements to both the existing culverts and drainage ditch between the application site and the River Whitewater.

No discharge of surface water from the site shall be accepted into the public system until the drainage works referred to in the strategy have been completed.

Reason: The development may lead to surface water flooding; to ensure that sufficient surface water drainage capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community and to comply with the NPPF and saved policies GEN1 and GEN11 of Hart Local Plan.

4 Development shall not commence until a drainage strategy detailing the on-site surface water drainage works in line with that set out in the Flood Risk Assessment (December 2014) has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 47

The strategy shall address the further assessment needed, as set out by the independent Drainage Consultant (January 2015) in relation to:-

Details of the land drainage / overland flows in the surface water drainage strategy Details of the groundwater monitoring program Details of the maintenance regime

All development should be in strict conformity with the approved drainage strategy.

Reason To prevent the increased risk of flooding both on and off-site from surface water flooding sources in accordance with Paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Saved Local Plan Policies GEN1 and GEN11

5 With the exception of the access construction works agreed under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1990, no other development shall take place until it has been demonstrated that there is adequate foul water infrastructure capacity both on and off the site to serve the development and that it would not lead to adverse amenity impacts for existing or future users. The details submitted should comprise a detailed drainage strategy setting out how the drainage network capacity constraint will be mitigated. Where there is a capacity constraint and no improvements are programmed by Thames Water (or any successor), the developer must provide for appropriate improvements in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details must be completed prior to any dwelling hereby permitted is occupied.

Reason - The development may lead to sewage flooding; to ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community and to satisfy Saved Policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

6 No development shall take place until details and samples of all external surfaces, including bond and type/colour of mortar, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with approved details.

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

7 No works shall take place until details of the windows, including glazing bar details together with details of the door joinery, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason In the interests of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan.

8 No work shall take place until detailed drawings of all new external joinery work have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development/works shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

48

Reason To ensure the new work preserves the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and to satisfy saved policy CON 13 of the Hart District Local Plan.

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

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

10 No development shall take place until full details of the hard and soft landscaping have been submitted to and approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

Soft landscaping details shall include planting plans, written specifications, schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes and proposed densities where appropriate.

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

Reason To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscaping and to satisfy policies GEN1 and CON13 of the Hart Local Plan.

11 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order with or without modification) no enlargement of the dwelling house, as permitted by Class A, B, C or D of Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the Order, shall be constructed.

Reason To ensure the retention of a satisfactory appearance to the development, to avoid overdevelopment of the site and to satisfy saved Policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

12 No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological assessment in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation that has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. In the first instance, the archaeological assessment should, include as a minimum, trenched evaluation, and possibly geophysical survey to inform evaluation and mitigation.

49

Reason: To assess the extent, nature and date of any archaeological deposits that might be present and the impact of the development upon these heritage assets.

13 No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological mitigation of impact in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation that has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To mitigate the effect of the works associated with the development upon any heritage assets and to ensure that information regarding these heritage assets is preserved by record for future generations.

14 No development shall take place until the applicant, following completion of archaeological fieldwork a report will be produced in accordance with an approved programme including where appropriate post-excavation assessment, specialist analysis and reports, publication and public engagement.

Reason: To contribute to our knowledge and understanding of our past by ensuring that opportunities are taken to capture evidence from the historic environment and to make this publicly available.

15 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The approved CEMP shall be adhered to throughout the construction period and suitably address:

the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors, both on-site and off-site the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development the erection and maintenance of security hoarding wheel washing facilities measures to control the emission of dust, mud from vehicles and dirt during construction measures to control and limit any dust which may be generated during the construction phase, which may otherwise contribute to failure in water quality and turbidity and to the overall 'Unfavourable Declining Condition'1 of the Basingstoke Canal SSSI at this point. a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste from demolition and construction works

Reason To satisfy the NPPF and saved Local Plan policies GEN1, GEN8, CON3, CON7, CON10 and RUR3.

16 No plant machinery shall be operated at the site except between the hours of 07.30 to 18.00 hours on weekdays or 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays. No plant shall be operated at the site on Sundays or public holidays.

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

17 No deliveries of materials or removal by any heavy commercial vehicle within the meaning of 50

Section 138 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1994 (as amended) during the construction of the development shall take place before 09:15 or after 15:00 hours on Mondays to Fridays, or before 08:00 or after 13:00 hours on Saturdays. There shall be no such deliveries of materials or removal of spoil during the construction of the development on Sundays and public holidays.

Reason To avoid conflict in vehicle movements during the school opening and closing times and to comply with saved policy GEN1 of the Hart Local Plan.

18 There shall be no burning of demolition materials on the site.

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

19 No development or demolition work or delivery of materials shall take place at the site except between 07:30 hours to 18:00 hours weekdays or 08:00 to 13:00 hours Saturdays. No development or demolition work or deliveries of materials shall take place on Sundays or Public Holidays.

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

20 No work shall take place until details of the means of protection, including method statements where appropriate, for all trees, hedges, hedgerows and shrubs on site, unless indicated as being removed, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The trees, hedges, hedgerows and shrubs shall be retained and protected in accordance with the approved details for the duration of works on the site and for at least five years following occupation of the approved development, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Any such vegetation immediately adjoining the site shall be protected on the site in a similar manner for the duration of works on the site.

Any such vegetation removed without the Local Planning Authority's consent, or which die or become, in the Authority's opinion, seriously damaged or otherwise defective during such period shall be replaced and/or shall receive remedial action as required by the Authority. Such works shall be implemented as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, replacement planting shall be implemented by not later than the end of the following planting season, with planting of such size and species and in such number and positions as may be agreed with the Authority in writing.

Reason To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing vegetation and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

21 No work shall take place until details of tree planting, indicating positions, species and planting size, together with a timetable for planting, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, including the approved timetable, and the Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing when such planting has been completed.

Any such trees which are removed die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective within five years of planting shall be replaced with 51

specimens of a similar size and species as originally required, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason To ensure the provision of the amenity value afforded by trees in respect of the proposed development.

22 No work shall take place until details of services runs so that they do not damage/conflict with retained trees or where they do that precautions and techniques are used to minimise the impact upon the rooting environment.

Reason To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing vegetation and to satisfy saved policies GEN1 and CON8 of the Hart District Local Plan.

23 No development shall take place until an Ecological Management Plan which, in accordance with the findings of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal - Land off Bridge Road, North Warnborough (July 2014) (Ethos Environmental Planning) and Protected Species Survey Report - Land off Bridge Road, North Warnborough (July 2014) (Ethos Environmental Planning), includes further detailed survey work and mitigation measures, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The EMP should also include details of ecological enhancement within the development area as well as the landscaping in line with NPPF (Para. 118). All development should be in conformity with the approved ecological mitigation.

Reason To satisfy the NPPF and saved policies CON5 of the Hart District Local Plan.

24 No dwelling shall be occupied until a vehicular and pedestrian route, completed to base course level, is available between the respective dwelling and the public highway.

Reason In order to ensure satisfactory access to the development and to comply with saved policy GEN1 of the Hart Local Plan.

25 No building shall be occupied until vehicle parking spaces serving that building have been constructed, surfaced and, where appropriate, marked out in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the spaces shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles.

Reason In order to ensure satisfactory access to the development and to comply with saved policy GEN1 of the Hart Local Plan.

Reason To ensure that people with disabilities have adequate access to the development and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan.

26 Prior to occupation, all rear access gates (rear garden access gates and footpath entry gates) 52

should be fitted with a key operated lock that can be operated from either side of the gate.

Reason To satisfy saved policy GEN12 in the Hart District Local Plan.

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

1. Site Characterisation

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

i. a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; ii. an assessment of the potential risks to: human health, property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, adjoining land, groundwaters and surface waters, ecological systems, and archeological sites and ancient monuments; iii. an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination', CLR 2011.

2. Submission of Remediation Scheme

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

3. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme

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

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. 53

4. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination

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

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with (3) (Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme) above.

Reason To satisfy the NPPF and saved Local Plan policy GEN9

28 No on site vegetation clearance shall take place until a survey for nesting birds has been undertaken. In the event that nesting birds are found no site vegetation shall be removed within the nesting bird season (March to September) except with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing.

Reason To protect local biodiversity and to satisfy saved local plan policy CON5.

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

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

30 With the exception of the access construction works agreed under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1990, no other development shall take place until details of the width, alignment, gradient and type of construction proposed for the roads, footways and accesses, including all relevant horizontal cross sections and longitudinal sections showing the existing and proposed levels, together with details of street lighting and details of a programme for the making up of the roads and footways shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before first occupation of any phase.

The details submitted shall show that the roads are to be built to an adoptable standard. The details submitted for the proposed internal link route between the two portions of development parallel to the Basingstoke Canal shall be a standard such that an independent suitably qualified individual can determine the extent or otherwise of the impact on the stability of the Basingstoke Canal embankment.

The agreed details shall be fully implemented before any adjacent building hereby approved is occupied.

Reason: In order to ensure satisfactory access to the development and to comply with saved policy GEN1 of the Hart Local Plan.

54

31 No dwelling shall be occupied until a suitably scaled water butt, in line with the Sustainable Construction Supplementary Planning Statement (July 2014), has been provided for each dwelling.

Reason To satisfy saved Local Plan policy GEN11.

32 No dwelling shall be occupied until suitable acoustic mitigation for the dwellings in plots 1 to 7 has been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason To satisfy saved Local Plan policy GEN7.

INFORMATIVES

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

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

3 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance amended plans and reports were submitted in line with feedback from Officers. The objection comments received have been carefully considered within the report.

RECOMMENDATION B – That in the event that the planning obligation as set out in Recommendation A is not completed within 3 months of the date of this committee meeting, permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1 The proposed development would give rise to additional detrimental impacts on the transport infrastructure. As such, the proposal is contrary to paragraph 4.6.1 and saved policy T16 in the adopted Hart District Local Plan and the Council’s Community Infrastructure Policy.

2 The proposed development would exacerbate the existing deficiency in provision for leisure facilities within the vicinity of the site. As such, the proposal is contrary to paragraph 4.6.1 in the adopted Hart District Local Plan, Hart District Council Leisure Strategy and the Hart District Council Community Infrastructure Policy.

55

3 The proposed development would exacerbate the existing deficiency in provision for secondary schooling in the vicinity of the site. As such the proposal is contrary to paragraph 4.6.1 in the adopted Hart District Local Plan and the Hart District Council Community Infrastructure Policy.

56

COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 102 APPLICATION NO. 14/02539/FUL LOCATION Rotherwick House The Street Rotherwick Hook RG27 9BL PROPOSAL Proposed erection of a detached two-storey dwelling and detached garage and stores, and replacement garage for Rotherwick House, following demolition of existing garage and pool building. APPLICANT Mr & Mrs Nigel Bolt CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 27 March 2015 APPLICATION EXPIRY 7 January 2015 PLANNING COMMITTEE Cllr Mike Morris WARD MEMBER RECOMMENDATION Refer to Full Council

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

57

Proposed site plan

58

Proposed elevations

59

Detached garage for new dwelling

60

Replacement garage for Rotherwick House

61

BACKGROUND

The application is brought to Committee as a Departure because the site lies outside the settlement boundary of Rotherwick and in that respect is contrary to Local Plan Policy RUR2.

Amended plans with a revised house and garage design were received on 13th January 2015.

THE SITE

Rotherwick House is a substantial two storey detached dwelling set in generous grounds located on the north side of The Street in the rural settlement of Rotherwick. It is located within the Rotherwick Conservation Area and is a Grade 2 listed timber framed building with elements dating from C17th.

The site is generally fairly level with vehicular and pedestrian access from The Street. There is a triple garage on the west side of the house and a single storey pool house some 65m from the host dwelling; there is also a couple of sheds on site..

The area immediately to the rear of the house comprises formal lawns and gardens partitioned by mature beech hedges.

The site of the proposed new dwelling lies on the land beyond one of the beech hedges and is outside the settlement boundary as defined in the Local Plan (LP). This area comprises some 0.64 hectares and apart from the pond, pool house and sunken garden, is quite heavily treed.

PROPOSAL

The existing garage would be demolished and a new access created onto The Street. The new driveway would hug the western boundary, curving round, ending between the new garage and house. A small shed close to this boundary would be removed.

The pool house would be demolished and a new house built in a similar position. The revised design shows proposes a 'T' shaped building measuring 17.5m x 13.5m overall. It would have a roof 7.8m high. There would be 3 dormers on each of the north and south elevations and a single storey outshoot on the east elevation. The building would be timber framed with weatherboarding, brick infills and render under a clay tiles roof.

The timber garage building would comprise two bays for cars, a general store, log store and mower store. It would measure 13.3m x 6m overall with a roof 5.4m high maximum.

The new garage for Rotherwick House would measure 9.1m x 6m and includes 2 parking spaces and a garden store. It would be constructed of timber and have a roof 5.4m high.

PLANNING HISTORY

HWR 19092 - Erection of detached house and garage. Approved 1989 (Vine House)

HWR 20811 - Siting of LPG tank. Approved 1991

62

CONSULTEES RESPONSES

Rotherwick Parish Council 26.01.15 - Rotherwick Parish Council has no objection to this planning application, please refer to previously submitted comments.

18.12.14 We would like to reiterate one point from our original response, namely that "screening of the rear boundary with instant, mature hedging is encouraged".

3.12.14 The plans depict a high quality architectural design which, together with the traditional build materials described, should ensure the proposal is in keeping with the style and character of houses in the Conservation Area. The proposed new detached dwelling is located within the spacious residential gardens of Rotherwick House and is positioned a good distance from neighbouring properties, however, screening of the rear boundary with instant, mature hedging is encouraged.

Rotherwick Parish Council recognises that the application site is partially outside the defined settlement boundary, and it is a matter of current planning policy to determine whether this contravenes saved planning policies RUR 1 and RUR 2, which generally prevent development outside the settlement boundary, or whether this application should be determined by the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development, given the questions around the ability to demonstrate a 5-year land supply for the District. The Parish Council has no comment on these matters of planning policy which are central to the determination of this application.

The Parish Council wishes to request that should permission be granted the new access and driveway uses a traditional Hampshire gravel. Further, a connection to the main foul (sewer) system is proposed, Rotherwick has a serious capacity problem with the mains sewer system which could be exacerbated by the connection of a new dwelling, and therefore requests the applicant and Hart District Council to consider the installation of an on-site packaged sewage treatment system as a more sustainable alternative.

Conservation/Listed Buildings Officer (Internal) 9.02.15 -The proposed dwelling has been reduced in size and height to a less dominant structure in relation to the existing dwelling and the surrounding plots. The design of the building is appropriate and well portioned, subject to the condition of external materials. The garage has been reduced in size and overall the scheme is a well balanced approach to infill in this conservation area. No objection, subject to conditions.

9.12.14 - Original comments (abridged): The proposed materials for the new garage and house are appropriate, subject to details and finishes. Views into the site are considered to be of minimal alteration and therefore from the street frontage, the harm would not be created through such a development. The layout of Rotherwicks development is linear along the road, forming a band of housing at varying proximities to the road. The area of Rotherwick house is a corner of the village where development does spread further back into sites, whether these are houses, out buildings or stores. The plot is split, with the site proposed for development being outside the policy settlement boundary. The house design is appropriate, however the footprint and height are larger than the existing house. Any development if the principle is deemed acceptable, subordinate to the existing house. This includes the scale of the garage, which for the new house is twice the size of that for the existing. The scale and proportion need to the reduced, footprint and height. The existing trees currently form a landscaped boundary, but through construction this may be lost. 63

The screening is a key aspect to any impact on the setting of the listed building. If it is deemed acceptable under policy, then some smaller development may be acceptable, depending on a reduced scheme and landscaping.

Tree Officer (Internal) 16.02.15 - No objections

13.02.15 - While the Arboricultural Method Statement including tree protection, site monitoring and phasing of works is suitable, it is not clear at what point the services will be installed. The Tree Works Plan states that they will be installed beneath the driveway so I assume they will be installed in Phase 1 or 2. Please can this be clarified. Where possible, it would be preferred for the services to run just outside of the driveway so that if the services themselves need to be serviced, they do not require the removal and reinstatement of the CellWeb.

18.12.14 - I am happy now for removal of the yew on the basis that its replacement is conditioned. A design for the access/driveway, parking and turning areas has not yet been submitted. I require this prior to lifting my objection.

4.12.14 - The northern boundary is relatively informal with mostly native semi-mature trees/shrubs. A native hedgerow mix (encompassing hawthorn, blackthorn, field maple, guelder rose etc.) may be good to manage at 2m for wildlife value and screening. A hornbeam or beech hedge may be better from a screening point of view although with less value for wildlife.

The boundary to the south is more formal, visible from Rotherwick House and the proposed development. In this situation, perhaps consider pleached lime. Alternatively, consider mirroring the double-rowed hazel that is present on the side of the proposed access. Beech would also suffice.

Given that the plot is already under substantial tree cover, it is my opinion that replanting outside of boundary hedges should only be conditioned where significant, feature trees (e.g. the yew) are removed.

This is an opportunity to build a property with established feature trees which will clearly enhance its character and be in keeping with the surrounding area.

Highways A new access is proposed directly of 'the street' a 2.4m x 43m visibility splay is provided which accord with a 30mph speed of traffic. There is traffic calming along this section of road and the speeds are unlikely to exceed 30mph. The access is adequate.

The applicant should be made aware that any new access onto public highway will require Hampshire County Council to approve the construction prior to commencement. They will need to be informed In order that the works within the public highway are carried out in a satisfactory manner. The applicant is advised to contact Hampshire Highway North based in Hook, the number is available on the HCC website.

The is a long access drive leading to the new dwelling (approx 100m long), this scales off at 3m wide, as this access road is for pedestrian as well as vehicles can this be increased to 3.2m in width. Also due to the length I will require a passing place midway along the drive to ensure adequate vehicular accessibility to and from the new dwelling. The driveway width at this point should be 4.2m and 6m long.

There is adequate parking for 4+ vehicles on the proposed drive I will therefore not be reviewing the proposed garage. For these comment this will be deemed storage for cycles and bin.

64

No highway objection

Ecology Consult (Internal) I have no record of protected species on the site itself and the proposals will not affect any designated sites of nature conservation value.

The ecology assessment (the Ecological Co-op environmental consultants, October 2014) found evidence that the existing garage supports a small seasonal summer roost for common pipistrelle bats. Droppings were found and a subsequent emergence survey recorded a single pipistrelle emerging from the building. The roost is of low significance.

However, the proposals include the demolition of the garage which would lead to the loss of a bat roost. As such the works will require a licence from Natural England which will include a method statement detailing the mitigation and enhancements required to ensure there are no negative impacts on bats.

I have no objection to this application on the grounds of biodiversity subject to the following condition:

All works must be carried out in accordance with the approved Bat Survey Report and mitigation strategy provided by the Ecological Co-op environmental consultants dated October 2014 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that there are no adverse impacts on bats and to satisfy saved Policy CON5 of the Hart District Local Plan

County Archaeologist No comments received

Streetcare Officer (Internal) No comments received

Thames Water Property Services Thames Water would advise that with regard to sewerage infrastructure capacity, we would not have any objection to the above planning application.

Surface Water Drainage - With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of groundwater. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0800 009 3921. Reason - to ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall not be detrimental to the existing sewerage system.

NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS

One comment has been received raising no objections and five comments received from three neighbours raising the following issues: - Loss of privacy and need for evergreen screening along the east and north boundaries - Loss of outlook - Loss of trees 65

- Sets a precedent for extending outside the settlement boundary - Understood that land outside the settlement boundary could not be built on - Noise and disruption - Drainage

POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES

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

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

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

Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006

GEN1 - General policy for development

GEN4 - General Design Policy

RUR1 - Definition of areas covered

RUR2 - Devl. in open countryside General

RUR3 - Devl. in open countryside Control

CON1 - Nature Conserv European Designations

CON5 - Nature conserv Species Protected

CON8 - Trees, Woods & Hedgerows Amenity Value

CON13 - Conservation Areas General Policy

CON14 - Conservation Areas Building Demolition

CON17 - Listed Buildings Extension-Alteration

CON23 - Devl affecting public rights of way

T14 - Transport and Development

66

T15 - Development Req New Improved Access

CONSIDERATIONS

Principle

As the property lies outside any settlement boundary as defined by the Local Plan, therefore the proposal has to be assessed against saved policies RUR2 and RUR3 of the Hart District (Replacement) Local Plan 1996-2006. Here the aim is to protect the countryside by minimising the impact of new development and saved policies RUR2 and RUR3 have a presumption against development unless the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that it is specifically provided for by other policies in the local plan. In this case there is no policy which specifically allows for new residential development in the countryside outside the settlement boundary. As such it is contrary to the adopted Local Plan and represents a Departure from it.

The Council has published a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The SHMA has been independently audited and the figures are considered robust. Based on those housing numbers the Council has updated the 5-year housing land supply position statement and these show a housing supply in excess of 5tyears plus a buffer. Therefore there is no need to develop unallocated sites outside of settlements.

However, it is acknowledged that the five year land supply can fluctuate and in order to maintain this supply, there is a presumption in favour of development of sites which are otherwise suitable.

In September 2013, the Council adopted the Interim Housing Delivery Strategy (IHDS). This is not a statement of planning policy and carries little weight in planning decisions. It is simply a statement of the Council's views and preference for how housing development is to be delivered over the next few years in Hart. The weight should be given to the existing adopted Plan and the NPPF.

Planning Principle 4 in the IHDS is on Housing Distribution and states that the Council will grant planning permission for sustainable development that accord with the general distribution pattern as set out in Table 2 provided that the total quantum of development to be provided within the Thames Basin Heath SPA zone of influence does not exceed 4,400 dwellings from a base date of 1st April 2006.

This proposal accords with the general distribution pattern in Table 2 as 469 dwellings should be located within the rural settlements and previously developed land in the countryside. The total quantum of development within the Thames Basin Heath SPA zone of influence does not exceed the number as quoted above.

Planning Principle 2 of the IHDS deals with the location of housing and states that development will generally be permitted outside defined settlement boundaries provided that it is on previously developed land. Development of garden land will generally be limited to small-scale infilling and will only be permitted where it does not cause harm to the local area.

Although the site is outside the settlement boundary and would not be considered part of the residential curtilage, the land clearly has domestic use. The pool house was built some 30 years ago and the walled garden also appears to have been there for many years.

In addition, the current Local Plan is of some vintage and some of the housing policies could be considered out of date. Therefore such policies need to be read alongside the guidance in the NPPF. 67

There is a presumption from the NPPF, that for sustainable development, planning permission is granted unless: 1) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or 2) specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

The NPPF defines sustainable development as comprising three dimensions: economic, social and environmental.

As part of its evidence base, the villages of Hart were assessed in terms of facilities, transport links and population and a settlement hierarchy comprising 5 'tiers' established. Rotherwick was considered to be in Tier 4, that is, one of the larger villages with some facilities.

Socially, a primary school, church, village hall and two PH's are located along The Street, although there are no shops at all and no public transport. However Hook is located 3-4 miles away where there are good transport links and a range of shops.

Economically, the proposal would provide one additional dwelling; however it must be acknowledged that this would not make a significant difference to the housing needs of the District.

Environmentally, the site does not comprise high value agricultural land, nor is it within an area which has a high risk of flooding or within a strategic gap. It is immediately adjacent to existing dwellings and is not an isolated site in the countryside.

It is therefore concluded that overall, the site is sustainable and the presumption should be in favour of development.

However it is also necessary to consider if there would be any adverse impacts from the proposal which would indicate development should be restricted.

Design and impact on the heritage assets

Saved Policy permits development where the proposal is well designed, is in keeping with the local area and sympathetic to the existing dwelling. Saved Policy CON13 requires that development conserves or enhances the character and appearance of Conservation Areas. Policy CON14 requires that the demolition of a building should not harm the special character of the Conservation Area and that proposal for re-use of the site are approved

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that great weight should be given to the conservation of a heritage asset and any harm or loss of significance should require clear and convincing justification (para.132). Significance can be harmed by development within its setting (para 132).

The design reflects the form and materials of Rotherwick House and the size, footprint and mass is subordinate to it. The dormers, windows and roof pitch are all well designed and result in a pleasing architectural composition. The garage has been reduced in size and is considered to be in proportion to the new dwelling. This is considered acceptable.

There would be a distance of some 68m between the new buildings and Rotherwick House and the existing beech hedge provides a clear separation between the two buildings. Rotherwick House would have a reduced area around it, but would still comprise some 0.38 hectares - which is most of the existing formal garden area. Given this distance, the subordinate nature of the proposal and the generally unobstructed views of the listed building, it is considered that there would be no adverse impact on its setting.

68

The Conservation Area review in 2011 summarized the key characteristics as a 'dispersed pattern along The Street with views of fields and woodland between the buildings', and 'mainly one plot deep.' The design guidance included the recommendation ' New development should respect the historic grain of development.... particularly in relation to The Street'. This scheme would result in a back land development contrary to this advice. However the Conservation Officer considers that on balance, due to its corner location and the existence of other buildings to the north of the site ancillary to dwellings along Wedmans Lane, together with the existing trees and vegetation which ensures the site is well screened from public view, that the character of the Conservation Area would not be adversely affected.

The new access would result in the loss of part of the front boundary hedge, but as there is a deep grass verge, no other vegetation would have to be removed in order to provide appropriate visibility splays. Therefore, it is considered that there would be no harm to the character of the street scene by the removal of the hedge and the new access. It should be noted that domestic hedges are not protected in Conservation Areas, so it could be removed at any time without the need for any consents.

The replacement garage would be closer to Rotherwick House than the existing, but is smaller and would be built on an existing hardstanding. The design and materials are considered appropriate and is considered not to harm the setting of the listed building or the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

It was apparent on site that the two buildings to be demolished have no historic value and therefore no record of them is considered necessary. The garage to be demolished dates from the mid C20th and the pool building from circa 1980. Neither forms an important element of the character of the Rotherwick Conservation Area or are considered to be curtilage buildings.

Impact on countryside and ROW

Saved Policy RUR2 requires that development should not have an adverse impact on the appearance of the countryside. Saved Policy CON23 requires that the recreational and visual amenity value of footpaths is not adversely affected. The NPPF advises LPA's to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside (para. 17)

A public footpath (Right of Way) links Wedmans Lane and Frog Lane running across the fields some 150m north of the application site. There are clear views of the backs of the properties along The Street from this path. However the site is well screened by existing trees from any views from the north-west and west and by the gardens of the properties along Wedmans Lane from the north. It is therefore considered that the visual amenity value of the footpath would not be unduly harmed and there would be no harm to the character of the countryside.

Neighbour amenity

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

Given the closest distance from the proposed new house to any of the adjacent properties along The Street and/or Wedmans Lane would be over 50m, it is considered that there would be no material loss of amenity in terms of loss of light, visual intrusion or loss of privacy to any neighbour.

The outlook will be different for some neighbours, but loss of view is not a material planning consideration. New hedges are to be planted and existing ones extended along the northern and eastern boundaries as part of the landscaping scheme submitted with the application. This would provide

69 additional screening of views into rear gardens. Comments have been made that the proposed native planting should be all evergreens in order to preserve privacy all year round. However, as stated already, the separation distances are such that there would be no material loss of privacy to neighbouring dwellings and the proposed mix of native planting will provide screening during the summer months when gardens are most likely to be in use.

Trees and landscape

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

A number of trees will be removed to build the new house, garage and driveway. The Tree Officer had no objection to the removal of most of the trees as none were classed as having a high amenity value, apart from a mature yew. A replacement yew tree will be planted half way along the new drive. Once established, this should be clearly visible from The Street and will enhance the street scene and the Conservation Area.

The new hedging; beech, yew and mixed native is considered acceptable and in keeping with the setting of the listed building. The Landscape Officer advised informally that a native hedgerow mix will be more likely to thrive along the rear where light is limited than holly or beech.

Full details of tree protection during construction works, details of service trenches and a timetable for implementation of the planting have been provided. The tree officer has withdrawn previous objections to these proposals provided the details are adhered to. This could be secured by condition.

Parking and access

Saved Policies GEN1(vii), T15 and T14 require that developments have adequate arrangements for the parking and servicing of vehicles and there is no adverse impact on highway safety.

The Highways Officer raised no objections to the new access or visibility splays, but had concerns regarding the width of the drive and the need for a passing space halfway along. An amended site layout was supplied to address these concerns. Although no further response has been received from the highways officer, the increased width and the passing place is shown in accordance with his initial suggestions.

The Councils parking standards require that 4 spaces should be provided for a 4 bed-roomed house in Zone 3. The proposal complies with these requirements.

Biodiversity

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

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

70

A full biodiversity report was submitted with the application. The garage to be demolished supports a small roost; therefore mitigation proposals were also submitted. The Councils ecologist has no objection to the proposal subject to condition.

Special Protection Area for ground nesting birds (SPA)

The site is located within 5km from the nearest component of the SPA. Under the Avoidance Strategy (see Appendix A) a total contribution of £11,874 towards the Hitches Lane SANG and SAMM would ensure that the development does not have a significant effect on the SPA and consequently comply with the relevant policies of the Local and South East Plans. This has been secured by way of a S106 legal agreement.

Community Infrastructure and Mitigation

In accordance with the requirements of the national Planning Policy Guidelines, no contributions towards infrastructure are required.

Other matters

Thames Water has no objections regarding sewage infrastructure capacity. The provision for surface water run-off will be dealt with under building control. An informative could be added drawing the applicants' attention to the comments of Thames Water in terms of water run-off.

Given the specific circumstances and location of this site, it would not be likely to set any sort of precedent, in any event all planning applications are determined on their own merit in accordance with the national and Local policies at the time. There are no absolute certainties in planning as economic and social circumstances and relevant policies can change over time.

CONCLUSION

The site is considered to be sustainable and located immediately adjacent to an existing settlement. There are no adverse impacts from the proposal that cannot be adequately addressed by condition which would indicate permission should be refused. Although the Council can currently demonstrate a 5 year land supply; in order to sustain this position, sites which are otherwise suitable should still be approved. Therefore in accordance with the NPPF, as the scheme is acceptable, there is a presumption in favour of granting the development.

RECOMMENDATION - Refer to Full Council with a recommendation to GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS

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

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

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

Reason

71

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

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order with or without modification) no enlargement of the dwelling house, as permitted by Class A, B, C or D of Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the Order, shall be constructed.

Reason To ensure the retention of a satisfactory appearance to the development, to avoid overdevelopment of the site and to satisfy saved Policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order with or without modification) no building, enclosure, swimming pool or other pool, as permitted by Class E of Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the Order, shall be constructed.

Reason To ensure the external character and appearance of the building is retained and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

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

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

7 The approved access and visibility splays for vehicles shall be available prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved and thereafter be retained for these purposes.

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

8 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the hard and soft landscaping and replacement planting, including the timetable for implementation, shall be as shown and annotated on the approved plans numbered 529-P-02B and 529-P-03A.

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

Reason To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscaping and to satisfy saved policies GEN1 and CON8 of the Hart District Local Plan.

9 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, all works shall be carried out in accordance with the tree protection details, service trench details and method statement shown and annotated on approved plan numbered 529-P01-B, the email dated 16.02.15 and the tree report by Green Earth dated 4.02.15, all submitted with the application.

72

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

Reason To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscaping and to satisfy saved policies GEN1 and CON8 of the Hart District Local Plan.

10 All works must be carried out in accordance with the approved Bat Survey Report and mitigation strategy provided by the Ecological Co-op environmental consultants dated October 2014 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that there are no adverse impacts on bats and to satisfy saved Policy CON5 of the Hart District Local Plan

11 No development or demolition work or delivery of materials shall take place at the site except between 07:30 hours to 18:00 hours weekdays or 08:00 to 13:00 hours Saturdays. No development or demolition work or deliveries of materials shall take place on Sundays or Public Holidays.

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

12 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans numbered: A109-14, 1397.01D, 1397.02E, 1397.03D, 1397.04A, 1397.05E, 1397.06, 1397.07A

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

INFORMATIVES

1 Works affecting the highway need consent from the Area Surveyor, please contact Hampshire Highways on 0845 850 4422.

2 The applicants' attention is drawn to the comments from Thames Water regarding surface water run-off and to the comments of the Parish Council about sewage disposal.

3 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance the applicant was advised of the necessary information needed to process the application and, once received, the application was acceptable and no further engagement with the applicant was required.

73

COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 103 APPLICATION NO. 14/03057/REM LOCATION Glen Haven Dunleys Hill Odiham Hook Hampshire RG29 1DU PROPOSAL Application for approval of reserved matters in respect of the appearance, scale and landscaping of the 3 dwellings along with the parking areas, drives and landscaping area. Reserved matters to be determined: (i) Appearance (ii) Scale (iii) Landscaping APPLICANT SG Project Management Ltd CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 30 January 2015 APPLICATION EXPIRY 17 February 2015 PLANNING COMMITTEE Cllr Stephen Gorys WARD MEMBER RECOMMENDATION Grant

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

74

75

Plot A

76

77

Plot B

78

Plot C

79

BACKGROUND

This application is reported to the Planning Committee at the discretion of the Head of Regulatory Services.

THE SITE

Glen Haven is located on the east side of Dunleys Hill. It is set behind the frontage development and is accessed off a joint access to three other properties which is also Footpath 70 of Odiham Parish. The footpath then divides with Footpath 17 passing to the north of the site.

The site is relatively flat and is surrounded by significant vegetation, but this is typical of an ornamental domestic garden rather than woodland trees. A very small proportion of the site in the southeast corner falls within the Odiham Conservation Area, as is the land to the east.

Glen Haven itself is a bungalow although all the surrounding properties are houses. The main part of the site, excluding the access, has an area of 0.0237 ha.

PROPOSAL

Approval is sought for appearance, landscaping and scale as reserved matters to the outline application ref 13/00962/OUT.

The overall sizes of the houses are set out below:

Plot A - Five bed detached two storey dwelling with double attached garage and balcony on the rear elevation. Maximum dimensions 21 metres wide, 16.5 metres deep and 7.3 metres high roof.

Plot B - Three bed detached two storey dwelling with double attached garage. Maximum dimensions 17.3 metres wide, 9 metres deep and 8.1 metres high roof.

Plot C - Four bed detached two storey dwelling with double attached garage (room above garage facilitated by dormer window). Maximum dimensions 16.8 metres wide, 11.9 metres deep and 8.4 metres high roof.

Materials indicated on drawings: red bricks, green oak cladding, clay/concrete roof tiles, and painted softwood/aluminium windows.

A basic hard and soft landscaping scheme has been provided on the site plan drawing.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Outline planning permission ref 13/00962/OUT for Erection of 3 no. dwellings, associated access and landscaping following demolition of existing bungalow was granted 16.08.13. This outline consent was for access and layout.

Reserved matters application 14/01726/REM was refused planning consent 14.11.14 for the following reason:

The proposal represents a cramped form of development, is unacceptable in scale and massing, and would result in material harm to the character of the local area including Odiham Conservation Area and the character of the adjacent public footpath. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policies 80

GEN1, GEN4, RUR20, CON13 and CON23 of the Hart District Local Plan, Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and the guidance in the NPPF.

The informative note on this refusal advised the applicant to consider reducing the scale and mass of the dwellings and reducing roofs from gable to hipped.

CONSULTATIONS

Odiham Parish Council:

Odiham Parish Council objects to this application for reserved matters for the following reasons:

At outline stage (13/00962/OUT) we felt that this was over-development. Had the outline permission not included land which was outside the settlement boundary, it would have been gross over- development and we do not believe 3 houses would have been permitted. This context is relevant to the deliberations of Hart's planning committee which considered the previous application for reserved matters on this site (14/01726/REM) which was refused. A representative of Odiham parish council attended that meeting and heard the will of the committee expressed in the words "not one inch more" than had been permitted at Outline stage. We concur with this view and find it very unsatisfactory that nowhere on this application is the square meterage shown, to compare with that on plan FS.01B agreed at Outline. We do not believe that it meets the target of "not one inch more".

We note and appreciate the moving of the houses very slightly away from the neighbouring properties and the proposed height of the house on plot A.

However, the proposed heights on plots B and C, on an already crowded site and replacing a bungalow, should also be kept to a minimum in order to maintain views across the site from the Deer Park, and to reflect both the character and amenity of the neighbouring properties.

The design of the house on plot A is plain ugly and will be prominent from public paths across the Deer Park, therefore failing to maintain or enhance the Conservation Area which abuts the boundary of this site and specifically of plot A.

The Outline required obscured glass on the rear of Plot B: this has not been followed.

Should this application be granted however, Odiham parish council supports all the neighbours' various requests for conditions on this site, and most particularly on parking on the approach road, which though privately owned also hosts a public footpath. All parking during construction should be contained on the site.

Conservation Officer (Internal):

No comments received at time of writing report.

Highways (Internal):

No objection. NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS

Four letters of objections have been received which raise the following main points:

1- Do not address previous reasons for refusal- density too high and houses too close together Officer comment: please see section 2 of this report for full consideration of these issues.

81

2- Plots are larger in square metre floor area than indicated at the outline stage. Officer comment: this is acceptable in principle as the scale is a reserved matter.

3- Plot B- too high at 8.1 metres and would overshadow Foxgloves, upstairs windows would look into rear garden and bedroom windows of Foxgloves, fails to meet conditions of outline consent as three non obscure windows on rear elevation, too close at 1 metre to Foxgloves to allow any planting, overbearing and upstairs windows would overlook Deer Park Lodge, a bungalow should be considered instead, and garage roof at 5.5 metres high is attempt to add another bedroom. Officer comment: please see section 3 of this report for full consideration on neighbour amenity.

4- Plot A would result in loss of light to Deer Park Lodge and windows in bedroom 2 would overlook. Officer comment: please see section 3 of this report for full consideration on neighbour amenity.

5- Triangular area to the southeast is pastoral land and should not be used on overall plot size of the development Officer comment: This piece of land was within the application site on the outline consent and therefore has consent for residential use. A condition is recommended to remove permitted development rights for outbuildings therefore outbuildings could not be constructed on this land without first applying for planning permission.

6- There should be a condition so that the pastoral land remains undeveloped and not landscaped Officer comment: this is not reasonable as the outline consent granted allows for this land to be used as residential.

7-There should be a condition to restrict all construction parking on site Officer comment: a condition to this effect is not on the outline consent, this application is only to consider the appearance, landscaping and scale, therefore it would be unreasonable to add at this stage.

8- There should be a condition to restrict working hours to 08:00-18:00 Monday to Friday and 09:00- 12:00 Saturday. Officer comment: there is a working hours condition on the outline consent, albeit slightly different hours which are considered to be reasonable.

9- There should be a condition that the private lane should be resurfaced after development work. Officer comment: this is a civil matter and should not be conditioned.

10- There would be hedge removal to facilitate access width; part of the hedge is Foxgloves and a condition should secure its retention. Officer comment: this is a civil matter; the applicant is entitled to trim back a hedge which overhangs their land, but would need permission from the landowner for any further works.

POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES

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

Public rights of way are legally highways and anyone may use them at any time. However, there are different types. The public can walk on all of them, but some have extra rights to ride a horse, cycle or drive a vehicle. There are legal tests that have to be satisfied and procedures that have to be gone

82 through before a way can be said to be a public right of way or before a right of way can be created, diverted or closed.

Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006

GEN1 - General policy for development

RUR1 - Definition of areas covered

RUR20 - Housing in rural settlements

CON5 - Nature conserv Species Protected

CON8 - Trees, Woods & Hedgerows Amenity Value

CON13 - Conservation Areas General Policy

CON23 - Devl affecting public rights of way

T14 - Transport and Development

T16 - Improvements Made Necessary by Dev

CONSIDERATIONS

1- Principle

The principle to erect three dwellings has been accepted at the outline stage. The principle under saved local plan policy RUR20 is also acceptable providing that the density, scale and design are not harmful to the character of the surrounding properties.

2- Scale, appearance and landscaping

Saved policy RUR20 states that the density, scale and design of housing in rural settlements should not be harmful to the character of the surrounding properties.

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

Saved policy CON13 relates to conservation areas and states that proposals which do not conserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area will not be permitted.

Saved policy CON23 states that development will not be permitted which would seriously detract from the amenity and consequent recreational value of well-used footpaths and other public rights of way in the countryside close to main settlements by reducing their rural character or detracting from significant views.

Section 7 of the NPPF: 'Requiring good design' is particularly relevant to this application. Paragraph 56 states that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Paragraph 58 states that development should respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings. Similarly paragraph 59 states that development should be appropriate in overall scale, height, density, massing, landscape,

83 layout and materials.

The principle of three dwellings and their layout has been approved at the outline stage. Therefore this reserved matters application is solely to consider the appearance, scale and landscaping.

It is important to assess the changes made since previous refusal 14/01726/REM. The main changes are: *Plot A- main ridge reduced by 0.5 metres and one of the gables reduced in depth by 1.8 metres. *Plot B- main roof and garage roof changed from gable to hipped, 0.2 metre increase in ridge height, 0.7 metre reduction in width, and dwelling repositioned 1 metre further from boundary with neighbours. *Plot C- main roof changed from gable to hipped, 1.3 metre increase in ridge height, width reduced by 1.8 metres and depth reduced by 0.9 metres. *Reduction in separation between Plots B and C from 4 metres to 3 metres.

The footprint of the dwellings for this reserved matters application are largely similar to that shown on the indicative layout drawing for the outline consent and are considered acceptable.

Whilst there is an increase in the ridge height of two of the dwellings the overall mass of the dwellings has been significantly reduced through the change from gable to hipped roofs and the reduction in the overall footprints.

The dwellings would be two storeys in nature and would be between 7.3 and 8.4 metres high. This height is considered acceptable and would be similar to the immediately surrounding dwellings. The dwellings would be on higher land than those dwellings directly front Dunleys Hill; however given the separation distance it is considered that this would not be harmful to the character of the area. It is considered that these heights would not appear harmful from views from the adjacent Conservation Area either.

The general design is considered acceptable and would fit comfortably within the local area. Details of materials can be secured via condition. It is considered that there would be no material harm to views from the adjacent public footpath.

Basic hard and soft landscaping details have been provided on the site plan drawing; further details of landscaping including a timetable can be secured via condition.

Therefore the proposal would comply with saved policies RUR20, GEN1, GEN4 , CON13, and CON23.

3- Impact on residential amenity

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

As mentioned previously the footprint for the dwellings for this reserved matters application are largely similar to that shown on the indicative layout drawing for the outline consent; there is a condition on this consent to ensure that any windows at first floor level in the north elevation of Plot A, the northeast elevation of Plot B and the southeast elevation of Plots A and C shall be fitted with obscure glazing to protect privacy.

There would be a large glazed gable on the front elevation of plot A; this would face directly down the access driveway and any views of neighbouring properties would be at an oblique angle. Therefore this element of the proposal is considered acceptable.

There would be a balcony on the rear elevation of plot A which would face towards the open fields to the rear. Given the separation distances and the fact that any views of Heathfield House would be at an

84 oblique angle it is considered that the balcony would not result in an unacceptable impact.

The rear elevations of plots B and C are 13.7- 14.5 metres from the common boundary with Keyhole Cottage and Selsey and 35- 37 metres from the rear elevations of these properties. The corner of plot C would be 2 metres from Endymion and 29 metres from the rear elevation of this property. The application site is set at a higher level than these properties which directly front Dunleys Hill; however given the separation distances it is considered that there would be no unacceptable loss of privacy or overbearing impact to these properties.

Plots A and C would be located 4 metres from the common boundary with Heathfield House and 15 metres from the dwelling. There would also be some screening on the boundary. Given these separation distances it is considered that there would be no unacceptable impact in terms of overbearing impact or loss of light.

Plot A would be located 4.5 metres at it closest point to the rear corner of the garden of Deer Park Lodge and 33 metres from the dwelling. There is also the public right of way and screening from vegetation in between. Therefore it is considered that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable overbearing impact or loss of light.

Concern has been raised that Plot B would be overbearing to the occupiers of Deer Park Lodge and that the upstairs windows would overlook this property also. The corner of the garage of Plot B would be 20 metres from the nearest part of the dwelling at Deer Park Lodge; given this separation distance it is considered that there would be no unacceptable impact.

The garage to plot B would be located close to the side boundary with Foxgloves. However this garage is single storey in nature with a fully hipped roof and it is considered that it would not result in any unacceptable impacts to the occupiers of this dwelling. The corner of plot B would be located close to the rear corner of the garden of Foxgloves but the separation distance between the dwellings would be approximately 13 metres therefore it is considered that it would not result in an unacceptable impact in terms of loss of light or overbearing impact. Concern has been raised that there would be overlooking from windows on the rear elevation towards Foxgloves; these windows would face directly down the garden of the plot and any views of this neighbouring dwelling would be at oblique angles therefore it is considered that there would be no unacceptable impact. Concern has also been raised that these windows should be obscure glazed in line with the condition on the outline consent; the condition restricts windows on the north side elevation, not west rear elevation.

Therefore the proposal would comply with saved policy GEN1.

4- Other issues

Parking: The same layout as shown on the indicative layout drawing for the outline consent has been provided. The Highways Officer is content with the proposal. Each dwelling would have four parking spaces and there would be three visitor parking spaces; this complies with the Council's parking guidance. The garages are all sufficient in size to meet current parking standards and to provide cycle storage.

Trees: There are minor changes to the footprint from that shown on the indicative layout drawing for the outline consent. These changes would not result in unacceptable harm to the remaining trees on site. Furthermore there is a tree protection condition on the outline consent.

Community infrastructure: A legal agreement was completed with the outline consent to provide mitigation for the proposals impact on community infrastructure.

85

CONCLUSION

An outline permission for access and layout for three dwellings was granted under reference 13/00962/OUT. The scale, appearance and landscaping details submitted under this current application are considered to be acceptable and would not result in any unacceptable impact to neighbour amenity. Therefore the proposal would comply with the relevant saved policies of the Hart District Local Plan and with the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION - Grant Permission

CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

86

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

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

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order with or without modification) no additional first floor windows or openings shall be constructed in the north elevation of plot A, the northwest elevation of plot B and the southeast elevation of plots A and C.

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

6 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order with or without modification) no enlargement of the dwelling houses, as permitted by Class A, B, C or E of Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the Order, shall be constructed.

Reason To ensure the retention of a satisfactory appearance to the development, to avoid overdevelopment of the site, to protect neighbour amenity and to satisfy saved Policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

INFORMATIVE

1 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance the applicant was given advice on previously refused application 14/01726/REM. It is considered that the previous reason for refusal has been overcome. Consequently the application was found to be acceptable. All objection letters have been fully considered and addressed within the report.

87

COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 104 APPLICATION NO. 14/03060/FUL LOCATION Greenslopes Cricket Hill Lane Yateley Hampshire GU46 6BA PROPOSAL Change of use of the site to a mixed use comprising of a class C3 dwellinghouse and continued use of shed, office, skip and storage compound for building/roofing business. APPLICANT Mr M Marshall CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 11 March 2015 APPLICATION EXPIRY 23 March 2015 PLANNING COMMITTEE Cllr G Cockarill WARD MEMBER RECOMMENDATION Grant

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

88

89

90

BACKGROUND

The application is brought to Committee at the request of Cllr Cockarill who wishes the Committee to consider the impact on the Conservation Area and the amenities of neighbours.

THE SITE

The site is located on the west side of Cricket Hill Lane in the urban settlement of Yateley and within the Cricket Hill Conservation Area. The plot is roughly square with an area of some 0.04 hectares. A detached bungalow is positioned centrally on the site and an area in the north-west corner has been fenced off to form a 'compound' comprising a storage shed, an office, a skip and storage racks.

Pedestrian and vehicle access is a gravel driveway off Cricket Hill Lane and the area between the dwelling and the compound is almost entirely gravel hardstanding.

There is a considerable change in levels across the site, both from front to rear and side and side.

PROPOSAL

The application seeks permission to retain the compound and the sheds/racks it encloses and to change the use of the site to a mixed use of residential and storage for a building/roofing business.

The compound measures 16.5m long and 6.5m deep and is formed of 1.8m close boarded fencing with concrete posts. There are double doors at the northern end on the front elevation and a single door on the south side elevation.

Inside this enclosure is: a storage shed, measuring 8.5m long x 2.5m deep which has a flat roof 2.2m high a timber garden shed measuring 3.8m wide x 2.8m deep; this has a dual pitch roof 2.2m high and is used as an office storage racks along 10m of the inside of the front fence a skip measuring 3.4m x 1.7m

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

HWR 217 - Erection of workshop and store. Approved 7.10.1949

HWR 4086 - Erection of garages and store. Approved 30.12.1960

13/01818/CONAC - Demolition of outbuilding. Approved 9.10.2013

14/0898/HMC - Erection of timber gates and brick pillars. Approved 26.01.2014

15/00174/FUL - Erection of a replacement dwelling. Pending

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways The application is to support the existing use of the rear buildings for a small roofing business. The traffic attracted to the site will be minimal and not have a negative impact on the local road network. I therefore have no highway objection to the application.

91

Environmental Health (Internal) We have considered the application and have no objections.

This response has been made by considering paragraphs 190, 120 and 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Conservation/Listed Buildings Officer (Internal) (Verbally) No objections

Yateley Town Council No objection

NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS

Ten letters of representation have been received raising the following issues: - Increase in traffic causing noise, vibration and disturbance and highway safety issues - Cricket Hill already very busy and could not cope with the increase in traffic - Loss of privacy - Noise from vehicles and collection and dumping of materials a swell as general activity and skip collections - Light and environmental pollution - Unauthorised use and erection of buildings - Unauthorised storage of potentially dangerous waste and hazardous materials - Potential for significant expansion of the use and business activities which the Council could not control - Inappropriate use in a residential area and a Conservation Area - Modern builders yard would be an eyesore - Collection and deliveries at unsocial hours - Likely to attract vermin - Within 400m of the SPA, English Nature should be consulted. - Cats should not be allowed within the 400m buffer zone to control vermin. - Business is recorded as a carrier dealer at a different address which may be an environmental offence. - Very different from the previous low level 'sedate' use as an antiques business which was also situated further away from site boundary. - Advertised as 24/7 business - Visually intrusive - Plenty of alternative, more suitable, sites available

POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES

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

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

92

Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006

GEN1 - General policy for development

URB1 - Definition of Areas

CON13 - Conservation Areas General Policy

T14 - Transport and Development

CONSIDERATIONS

Principle

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

There are no specific policies in the Hart District Local Plan for a change of use to a mixed storage and residential; therefore where the policies of the Local Plan are absent, there is a presumption from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for sustainable development, that planning permission is granted unless: 1) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or 2) specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

Paragraph 18 of the NPPF states that the aims of Government are to secure economic growth and para 21 advises LPAs to 'facilitate flexible working practices such as the integration of residential and commercial uses within the same unit.'

It is therefore considered that the principle of a mixed use on the site would accord with the principles of the NPPF. In addition, it should be noted that the site has previously enjoyed a mixed use from 1949, as a business repairing antiques, although that use ceased with the demolition of the workshop in 2013 (13/01818/CONAC)

Impact on the character of the Conservation Area

Saved Policy CON13 requires that development conserves or enhances the character and appearance of Conservation Areas.

The enclosure is located some 50m from the front boundary and the buildings within it are single storey. From the public viewpoint of Cricket Hill Lane, it appears no more intrusive than would a boundary fence and garden shed. It is therefore considered that the actual physical structures would have no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. In order to ensure that this visual impact does not deteriorate, the storage of materials should be confined to within the compound so the site continues to appear tidy when viewed from Cricket Hill Lane. This could be secured by condition.

The subtext of CON13 allows for changes of use where the intensity of activity would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The applicant has supplied further details of the level of activity, employees and the day to day activities. As most of the activity takes place off site, with the compound used for storage and home office use only, this low level is comparable to a solely residential property occupied by a keen hobbyist. Expansion of the storage 93 facilities and possible storage outside the existing compound could be controlled by condition to ensure the level of activity remained reasonably low key.

As such it is considered that the proposal would comply with saved policy CON13.

Neighbour amenity

Saved Policy GEN1(iii) permits development where there would be no material loss of amenity to adjoining residential uses.

Given its single storey nature, and the significant change in levels at the rear of the site, it is considered that there would be no loss of privacy or light from the enclosure and the buildings within. From Badgers Wood, the neighbour to the rear, the interior of the compound is visible, but at the (unannounced) site visit, it was tidy with the materials neatly stacked. The buildings and fencing are well maintained and given the change in levels, where the top of the sheds are only 1m above the ground level of Badgers Wood, are not overbearing. Loss of a view is not a material planning consideration.

Neighbours have raised concerns about the general noise and disturbance from the collection and dumping of materials at unsocial hours and the beeping from reversing vehicles. However, the use of the site for the storage of roofing materials began in August 2013 and the Councils' Environmental Health department have no record of any complaints received regarding unneighbourly noises or disturbances during the past 18 months.

The applicant has confirmed the day to day activity and routine for his employees. This is, 6 self- employed carpenters using 2 vans, one of which is kept on site. The workmen visit the site at the beginning and end of each working day to collect/deliver tools and materials. The skip is for waste materials where the building site does not have its' own means of disposal and is emptied as required, approximately once a month. It is considered that this level of activity is not unreasonable or of an intensity likely to cause a nuisance. The Environmental Health Officer raised no objections to the proposal. Delivery/collection hours of materials could be restricted by condition to the normal working day.

It is worth noting that as a self-employed builder, parking his van (or any number of vehicles used by the occupants) at his residence would not require any planning consents.

As such it is considered that the proposal would comply with saved policy GEN1 in terms of neighbour amenity.

Highway safety

Saved Policy T14(iii) requires that adequate provision is made for highway safety, access, internal layout and parking.

Several comments have been made about noise and vibration from heavy lorries on Cricket Hill Lane and the capacity of the road. The only heavy lorry is the skip collection vehicle once a month. As stated already, expansion of the site could be controlled by condition, and therefore the amount of traffic would be unlikely to materially increase, given the limited storage space available.

The visibility splays are adequate at the entrance and there is ample parking and turning available on site.

The Highways Officer raised no objections to the proposal.

94

Other matters

The applicant has confirmed that no hazardous waste such as asbestos is stored on site. Disposal and storage of dangerous waste is strictly controlled under Environmental legislation.

Although retrospective applications are discouraged, the planning process does not require the uses/development to cease or be removed prior to submission of an application in order to regularise the situation and to impose appropriate conditions.

The structures themselves did not require an application for planning permission as they comply with the terms of Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended)

External lighting could be controlled by condition.

Vermin are attracted by food waste, not roofing materials.

The site is not within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or the Special protection Area for ground nesting birds (SPA). Therefore, for this type of application, Natural England are not a statutory consultee. In general Natural England has no objections to commercial uses within the 400m buffer zone of the SPA.

Whether or not cats should be allowed within 400m of the SPA is not material to the determination of this planning application.

No substantive evidence has been provided about the level of activity generated by the antiques business, but it was operated from quite a large building, included a workshop and could have generated a similar level of traffic movements.

CONCLUSION

The proposed change of use would have no adverse impact on the character of the Cricket Hill Conservation Area or on highway safety. There would be no material loss of amenity to neighbouring properties, subject to conditions to control any expansion of the use, light pollution and hours of operation. The proposal would therefore comply with the relevant saved policies of the Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - Grant

CONDITIONS

1 The shed, office, skip and storage compound (as shown on drawing 14/15/088/1 B) shall be used solely for the business of the Occupant of the dwellinghouse known as Greenslopes and at no time shall be sub-let, used separately or independently by other parties.

Reason To prevent the establishment of a separate business use and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan.

2 No deliveries or collection of materials, tools or waste shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside the hours of 07.30 to 18.00 hours on weekdays or 08.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

95

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

3 Nothing shall be stacked or stored on the site at any time except within storage compound shown on the approved plan 14/15/088/1 B

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

4 Nothing shall be stacked or stored higher than 1.7m above ground level within the storage compound.

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

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) no other buildings, plant, machinery, or fixed or portable structure shall be erected or placed on site.

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

6 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) no alterations, extensions or hardstandings permitted by Part 8 of the Second Schedule of the Order shall be carried out.

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

7 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no external lighting shall be installed at the site.

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

8 No burning of building waste materials shall take place on site.

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

96

INFORMATIVES

1 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance the applicant was advised of the necessary information needed to process the application and, once received, the application was acceptable and no further engagement with the applicant was required.

97

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Date and Time: 11 March 2015 at 7pm

Place: Council Chamber, Civic Offices

COUNCILLORS

Cockarill (Chairman)

Clarke, Gorys, Morris, Oliver, Parker (substitute Woods) Radley JE, Southern, Wheale

In attendance: Councillor Bennison

Officers:

Nick Steevens Head of Regulatory Services Emma Whittaker Development Management Team Leader Peter Lee Development Management Officer Andy Johnson Drainage Consultant – Stillwell Partnership Kuldip Channa Shared Legal Services Alison Cottrell Committee Services

63 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

The Minutes of the meeting held on the 11 February 2015 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

64 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Blewett and Woods (substitute Parker).

65 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

None.

66 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

None.

67 PLANNING (ENFORCEMENT) SUB COMMITTEE

The Minutes of the Planning (Enforcement) Sub Committee held on the 1 December 2014 were noted.

PL.127

68 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

The application set out in the accompanying schedule was considered and decisions made as shown. The Addendum was circulated and the updated information accepted.

The meeting closed at 10.10 pm.

PL.128

HART DISTRICT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

Decisions / Recommendations – 11 March 2015

Item No: 101 - 14/01704/MAJOR – Land East of Hook Road, North Warnborough, Hook, Hampshire.

This is a full planning application for the development of 33 residential dwellings, vehicular access from Hook Road, pedestrian access from the Basingstoke Canal towpath, public open space, drainage works and landscaping.

This application is referred to the Planning Committee as it represents a DEPARTURE from the Local Plan. It represents development outside, but adjacent to, a settlement and within two conservation areas, where the form and fabric of development should be strictly controlled if their importance as designated heritage assets is to be maintained.

Members discussed the following:

The drainage ditch on the site and the possibility that if this is not maintained, the site area would flood. The ownership of the drainage ditch – at present, some of the ditch is owned by the applicant, some by Hart District Council and some by other private owners. The control of the ditch and that unless the maintenance of it was placed into a management company, then the onus for maintenance would rest with the riparian owner. That some of the drainage ditch is culverted and that the pipes used in these areas should be 600 mm diameter or greater. It was clarified that the minimum size pipe proposed was 600 mm with some 675 mm pipes together with some brick arches. It was further confirmed that currently the culverts had vertical grills, but that if these were changed to 45 degree grills, then this would prevent blockages. That the drainage ditch starts in the east of the site in the Deer Park, runs under the canal and onto the site and then drains into the Whitewater. That there were currently no proposals in place to protect members of the public from falling into the ditch, or to stop litter being tipped into it. How it could be guaranteed that the ditches would continue to be maintained into perpetuity, given that they had not been in the past. Whether a legal agreement could be put in place that would assist or whether the proposal for a development management company would resolve the issue. That a contribution of £7,000 would be secured through a planning obligation, towards the clearance and repair of the existing drainage ditch north of the site, and whether this sum would be sufficient. That the site is in flood zone 1. That the Met Office is revising its figures down from a 100 year flood event to a 30 year flood event. That the Council has been approached by the owner of the Deer Park to make changes to the flows on the drainage in that area, which in turn could have a significant effect on flow going onto the proposed site.

PL.129

Whether or not the roads on the site would be adopted and whether a condition could be put in place to ensure that this take takes place. The buffer zone and the definition of an undeveloped buffer zone, given that the access road is shown in that area. Whether clarification should be sought from the Environment Agency in relation to the buffer zone and the road being located there. That the site consists of two conservation areas and that they overlap, the Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area running along the edge of the canal and overlapping with the North Warnborough Conservation Area. Who would be responsible for the bank of the canal and whether or not its structural stability had been addressed along with the location and height of the canal in relation to the site. What impact the construction of the road would have on the structural integrity of the canal bank. That the road would be hand dug. That further independent assessment in relation to the stability of the canal is ongoing. Whether the movement of vehicles along the road would detrimentally harm the structure of the canal. Whether or not the access road could be located through the Chilli Pad to reduce impact on the Basingstoke Canal. The location of the affordable housing. Whether provision has been made for bin stores of a suitable size and whether the road would provide suitably sized access for a bin lorry. The benefits of the development in terms of land supply. Whether ransome strips could be put in place at the North East corner of the site. The location of the sewerage pumping station in the northern area of the site.

RESOLVED - DEFER

That the application be deferred to address the following: To clarify with the Environment Agency what their requirements are in relation to the buffer zone especially given that there is a road proposed through part of the zone. The structural stability of the canal bank and to seek the views of the Canal Society. To explore whether there could be an alternative access and whether this could be located through the Chilli Pad. Drainage – a maintenance strategy needs to be secured via conditions of legal agreements. To ensure that the cumulative impact of the drainage is considered (on and off-site) and to include consideration of the proposed works in the Deer Park. Overdevelopment of the site – to look at a more compact development that is sympathetic to the conservation area; this will involve looking at the density and overall numbers. However, the height of the buildings should not be increased. To look at car parking and whether or not the site is dominated by hard surfaces? (A reduction in the number of dwellings may address this. The number of car parking spaces per unit should not be reduced. Ransom strip to be located at the North East corner of the site. Clear policy on bin stores and collection points. That the safety of the ditches is addressed to protect public and prevent fly tipping.

PL.130

To establish with Hampshire County Council what their requirements are for adoptable roads on this site and to ensure that they will be built to this standard (this will need to be controlled by planning condition). This also includes specific reference to any standards required in relation to any culvert that will run under a road. That the Chairman and Ward Member be involved in the process.

NOTE:

Helen Fleming spoke on behalf of Odiham Parish Council Richard Baker spoke against the application. Ian Sowerby from Bell Cornwell and Bob Hewitt from Stuart Michael Associates spoke for the application. Councillor Bennison left the meeting at 8.05 pm prior to the completion of this application.

There was a short adjournment at 8.55 pm before the meeting recommenced at 9.00 pm

Item No: 102 - 14/02539/FUL – Rotherwick House, The Street, Rotherwick, Hook, RG27 9BL.

Proposed erection of a detached two-storey dwelling and detached garage and stores, and replacement garage for Rotherwick House, following demolition of existing garage and pool building.

The application is brought to Committee as a DEPARTURE because the site lies outside the settlement boundary of Rotherwick and in that respect is contrary to Local Plan Policy RUR2.

Members discussed the following:

That consultation had taken place with all neighbours in relation to the proposed development to try and ensure that a suitable design that was traditionally built was put forward. That the rubbish bins on the property would need to be wheeled to the main road. The planting and screening on the property and that a native mix of beech and yew would be used to screen the northern boundary and the boundary that splits the new site. That further planting on the back of the site was not proposed as the tree officer had indicated that it is already overplanted. That the mature yew tree that is being removed during the development would be replaced and relocated along the driveway. That the applicant was happy reinforce the trees planting along eastern boundary where there are currently has gaps and a lack of screening. A gravel trap should be secured at the edge of the driveway so as to prevent gravel spilling out onto the public highway.

RESOLVED

RECOMMENDATION - Refer to Full Council with a recommendation to GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions:

PL.131

CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

3 Notwithstanding the submitted landscaping plans, a scheme for additional tree planting along the eastern boundary of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall provide details of the tree planting indicating positions, species and planting size, together with a timetable for planting. The tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, including the approved timetable.

Any such trees which are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective within five years of planting shall be replaced with specimens of a similar size and species as originally, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason To ensure the provision of the amenity value afforded by the trees in respect of the proposed development.

NOTE: This condition requires additional tree planting in addition to any proposed on the approved landscaping scheme.

4 Prior to commencement of the development, details of a gravel trap (or other such mechanism to prevent gravel transferring onto the public highway) to be located at the edge of the gravel driveway where it joins the public highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the dwelling and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason To prevent gravel transferring onto the public highway

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this PL.132

Order with or without modification) no enlargement of the dwelling house, as permitted by Class A, B, C or D of Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the Order, shall be constructed.

Reason To ensure the retention of a satisfactory appearance to the development, to avoid overdevelopment of the site and to satisfy saved Policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

6 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order with or without modification) no building, enclosure, swimming pool or other pool, as permitted by Class E of Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the Order, shall be constructed.

Reason To ensure the external character and appearance of the building is retained and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

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

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

8 The approved access and visibility splays for vehicles shall be available prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved and thereafter be retained for these purposes.

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

9 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the hard and soft landscaping and replacement planting, including the timetable for implementation, shall be as shown and annotated on the approved plans numbered 529-P-02B and 529-P-03A.

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

Reason To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscaping and to satisfy saved policies GEN1 and CON8 of the Hart District Local Plan.

PL.133

10 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, all works shall be carried out in accordance with the tree protection details, service trench details and method statement shown and annotated on approved plan numbered 529-P01-B, the email dated 16.02.15 and the tree report by Green Earth dated 4.02.15, all submitted with the application.

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

Reason To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscaping and to satisfy saved policies GEN1 and CON8 of the Hart District Local Plan.

11 All works must be carried out in accordance with the approved Bat Survey Report and mitigation strategy provided by the Ecological Co-op environmental consultants dated October 2014 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that there are no adverse impacts on bats and to satisfy saved Policy CON5 of the Hart District Local Plan

12 No development or demolition work or delivery of materials shall take place at the site except between 07:30 hours to 18:00 hours weekdays or 08:00 to 13:00 hours Saturdays. No development or demolition work or deliveries of materials shall take place on Sundays or Public Holidays.

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

13 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans numbered: A109-14, 1397.01D, 1397.02E, 1397.03D, 1397.04A, 1397.05E, 1397.06, 1397.07A

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

INFORMATIVES

1 Works affecting the highway need consent from the Area Surveyor, please contact Hampshire Highways on 0845 850 4422.

2 The applicants' attention is drawn to the comments from Thames Water regarding surface water run-off and to the comments of the Parish Council about sewage disposal.

PL.134

3 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance the applicant was advised of the necessary information needed to process the application and, once received, the application was acceptable and no further engagement with the applicant was required.

NOTE:

Nigel Bolt spoke for the application.

Item No: 103 - 14/03057/REM – Glen Haven, Dunleys Hill, Odiham, Hook, Hampshire, RG29 1DU.

Application for approval of reserved matters in respect of the appearance, scale and landscaping of the 3 dwellings along with the parking areas, drives and landscaping area. Reserved matters to be determined:

(i) Appearance (ii) Scale (iii) Landscaping

Members discussed the following:

The current proposed footprints and how they relate to the outline planning document. Plot A is now approximately 2 square metres larger than what was approved – approximately 277 square metres up from 275 square metres. Plot B was approved at 160 square metres and is now shown as approximately 190 square metres. Plot C was approved at 220 square metres and is now shown as approximately 265 square metres. That the roof line on plot C is now hipped but is 1.3 metres taller than the original roofline. The impact on the adjacent public footpath. The scale and impact of the development. That there is now more distance between the proposed new properties and neighbouring properties but that this has been relocated in the centre of the site. That the scale and massing is not as the Committee had asked for previously – that smaller properties were sought.

RESOLVED - Refuse Permission

The proposal represents a cramped form of development, is unacceptable in scale and massing, and would result in material harm to the character of the local area including Odiham Conservation Area and the character of the adjacent public footpath. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policies GEN1, GEN4, RUR20, CON13 and CON23 of the Hart District Local Plan, Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and the guidance in the NPPF.

PL.135

NOTE:

Jon Hale spoke on behalf of Odiham Parish Council Paul Dickinson spoke for the application.

Councillor Wheale left the meeting at the conclusion of this item.

Item No: 104 - 14/03060/FUL – Greenslopes, Cricket Hill Lane, Yateley, Hampshire, GU46 6BA.

Change of use of the site to a mixed use comprising of a class C3 dwellinghouse and continued use of shed, office, skip and storage compound for building/roofing business.

The application is brought to Committee at the request of Cllr Cockarill who wishes the Committee to consider the impact on the Conservation Area and the amenities of neighbours.

Members discussed the following:

The history of the site – that it had been in use as a mixed use site since 1949 and prior to the current use was an antiques business. That there had been no history of complaints through Environmental Health in relation to noise in the last 18 months. That Environmental Health had visited the site and confirmed that all waste is inert waste. That the current business is a roof tiling business, sub contracting to other businesses with no industrial activities on site. The location of the stockade, storage area, office and skip in relation to Badgers Wood. As Badgers Wood was on higher ground to Greenslopes, the skip and its contents were visible, but due to the need to remove the skip from time to time, a covered screening was not a practical solution. Whether the applicant will comply with condition 2 relating to delivery or collection of materials, tools or waste. Whether this use is sensible and permitted within a conservation area. That the applicant may seek to build a new house on the site which would then mean he would relocate his office, storage area and skip. Whether any screening or acoustic treatment would be beneficial. Whether in moving the skip to an alternative area would create an increase in noise on the gravel drive.

RESOLVED – Grant Permission

Subject to:

Temporary consent for 2 years

PL.136

Skip moved to an alternative location at a point that would have least impact on neighbouring properties – to be agreed with officers. Additional screening to be provided along the boundary with Badgers Wood; this could include a trellis.

CONDITIONS

1 The shed, office and storage compound (as shown on drawing 14/15/088/1 B) shall be used for a period of two years only ending on 13th March 2017 and solely for the business of the Occupant of the dwellinghouse known as Greenslopes and at no time shall be sub-let, used separately or independently by other parties. The only waste associated with the business of the occupant to be stored on the site shall be non-food, building and/or construction waste.

At the end of the two year period the shed, office and storage compound shall be removed from the site and the use of the land shall be restored to residential garden for the dwelling known as Greenslopes.

Reason To prevent the establishment of a separate business use and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 in the Hart District Local Plan.

2 The use/activity associated with the business of the occupant of the dwellinghouse hereby permitted shall cease and structures brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed within 2 months of the date of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in (i) to (iv) below:-

i. within 2 months of the date of this decision a scheme for the relocation of the skip shall have been submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority and the scheme shall include a timetable for its implementation. ii. if within 10 months of the date of this decision the local planning authority refuse to approve the scheme or fail to give a decision within the prescribed period, an appeal shall have been made to, and accepted as validly made by, the Secretary of State. iii. if an appeal is made in pursuance of (ii) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined and the submitted scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State. iv. the approved scheme shall have been carried out and completed in accordance with the approved timetable.

Reason To ensure that the skip shall be relocated to a different position on site so as to reduce the impact on neighbouring amenity.

3 Within 2 months of the date of this permission details of a scheme to screen the storage compound by way of enhanced landscaping and/or provision of enhanced means of enclosure shall be submitted to the local planning authority. Once approved the scheme shall be implemented within the current planting season and within 2 months of the approval of the details and shall thereafter be retained for the life of the development. PL.137

Reason To protect neighbouring residential amenity, in accordance with saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan.

4 No deliveries or collection of materials, tools or waste shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside the hours of 07.30 to 18.00 hours on weekdays or 08.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

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

5 Nothing shall be stacked or stored on the site at any time except within storage compound shown on the approved plan 14/15/088/1 B

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

6 Nothing shall be stacked or stored higher than 1.7m above ground level within the storage compound.

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

7 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) no other buildings, plant, machinery, or fixed or portable structure shall be erected or placed on site.

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

8 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) no alterations, extensions or hardstandings permitted by Part 8 of the Second Schedule of the Order shall be carried out.

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

9 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no external lighting shall be installed at the site.

Reason PL.138

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

10 No burning of building waste materials shall take place on site.

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

INFORMATIVES

1 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance the applicant was advised of the necessary information needed to process the application and, once received, the application was acceptable and no further engagement with the applicant was required.

NOTE:

Martin Liniker spoke against the application. Clive Milburn spoke for the application.

PL.139