AND DEANE BOROUGH COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 13/06/2018

UPDATE

Item Ref No Address Ward Councillor Recommendation No 1 17/01722/FUL The Island Site, Cllr Dan Putty Approve subject to Beggarwood Lane, Cllr Terri Reid Legal Agreement Basingstoke Cllr Rebecca Bean Hatch Warren And Beggarwood

Agenda Page: 65- 115 Officer Presenting: Katherine Fitzherbert-Green

Parish/Town Council: Objectors: Heather Rainbow (Cycle Basingstoke), Stafford Napier (South West Action Group for Basingstoke) In Support: Jonathan Kiddle, Paul Hill,Mark James, Anusha Singh, Cheten Chauhan, Robert Steele Ward Councillor: Councillor Reid, Councillor R Golding, Councillor Bean, Councillor McCormick

Viewing Panel

Members viewed the site on the 8th June 2018. Members were met on site by the agent, architect and members of the Parish Council. The location of the proposed accesses were noted and the location of nearby bus stops were noted. Members viewed the site in the context of onsite parking, amenity areas, noise in relation to the proposed public house and the A30, the scale of development and public transport links, as described in the main report. Members also raised a number of additional queries as set out below.

Officer Comment

Members at the Viewing Panel additionally raised a number of queries which are responded to in turn:

 New pedestrian crossing - the need for a shared use signalised crossing on the junction of the A30 has been agreed between the developer and County Council as the Highway Authority to provide access in particular to the public house from Winchester Road. The crossing is also intended to benefit the wider area in terms of providing enhanced facilities for sustainable modes trips accessing the site. Final details are to be secured through a S278 Agreement with Hampshire County Council as 1 of 28

the Highway Authority.

 Operation of bus stops on Beggarwood Lane - the nearest bus stops on Beggarwood Lane are positioned to the north of the site on the eastern arm of Beggarwood Lane and to the south east opposite the entrance to Shortwood Copse Lane. Both bus stops are on the opposite side of the carriageway to the development site and sit outside of the red edge. The development does not impact upon the operation of these bus stops and no objection has been raised by the Highway Authority.

 Legibility - Due to the differing scales and external appearances of the proposed buildings, it is envisaged that the different uses will be largely visible from entering the site. Through an additional informative the applicant can be encouraged to provide internal signage to direct users and this includes that, should express consent be required for any directional signage, then this will need to be subject to an application under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations 1992.

 Impact of noise and disturbance from the public house upon the Specialist Care Home - the application was supported by a Noise Assessment which sets out that, to achieve a satisfactory environment for the Specialist Care Home due to its relationship with the public house, an acoustic fence of 2m in height will be required to extend along the northern boundary of the curtilage to the Specialist Care Home parallel to the car park of the public house. Details of this external appearance of this fence are secured for further approval within condition 24 with further conditions to be imposed to secure opening hours for the public house (condition 16), measures to control amplified music noise (condition 17), noise levels emitted from plant (condition 27), the timing of deliveries (condition 32). These conditions would sit alongside conditions (conditions 19-21) to secure protection from road traffic noise.

 Space for service/delivery vehicles - whilst the development provides a service/delivery yard for the public house and a smaller yard for the care home, the remainder of the proposed uses do not benefit from such facilities. Service/delivery vehicles would therefore be utilising the car parks for delivery and servicing parking and associated activities with swept paths illustrating that this would impact upon the accessibility of car park spaces and in some instances (e.g. for the public house) require the cordoning off of parking spaces in order to manoeuvre. There are also instances whereby service vehicles will need to utilise areas of adjoining uses (i.e. refuse collection for the dental surgery requires uses the access road for the Specialist Care Home). The recommendation has therefore been accompanied by a condition (condition 31) requiring the prior approval of phase specific Parking and Servicing Management Plans to agree matters pertaining to the timing, parking and manoeuvring of service and delivery vehicles and relationships between the different users.

2 of 28

Public Observations

Support

Two letters of support received (to include Hatch Warren & Beggarwood Community Association) on the following grounds (in summary):

 Delighted with the plans with the development desperately needed within the community and believe that the populous will be greatly appreciative.  The Beggarwood Community Centre has a clear vision to provide services for the elder members of the community.  Creation of 160 jobs will provide positive support for the local economy.  A new pub and dentists would be much welcomed.

Petition received in support of the application containing 102 signatures stating 'support for the provision of a new, purpose built dental surgery on the Island Site as part of a development that will deliver a new Public House, retirement apartments, a care home and an extra care facility currently being determined under planning application reference 17/01722/FUL'.

Comment

Two representations (from Cycle Basingstoke and South West Action Group for Basingstoke) commenting on the following grounds (in summary):

 Request a delay in granting permission until space has been allocated for cycling along adjacent sections of the A30 corridor;  Concerned that comments from Cycle Basingstoke have not been taken into consideration by HCC whereby London Cycle Design Standards are the preferred standards for cycle infrastructure in the Basingstoke Cycle Strategy;  No space allocated for bilateral protected cycle lanes (or similar) along the A30 on the site map;  Designs for the A30 cycling corridor are due to be drawn up. It is essential that the cycle infrastructure is implemented before houses are built rather than trying to retrofit later.  Concern regarding use of shared use paths  A Landform Proposal was submitted by the applicant in 1998 illustrating the proposed treatment of the Island Site as Structural Open Space;  Treatment of the land involved landscaping, tree planting, a viewing area and public sculpture.

Objection

 Two representations received expressing objection to the application on the following grounds (in summary):  Recommend deferral of the application until a sound transport plan for the Borough has been agreed with HCC.  Site would benefit form a cycle superhighway along the A30 (that separates cyclists from pedestrians) which needs to be included in the

3 of 28

design together with provision for minimal car use.  Basingstoke has shared use paths for cyclists and pedestrians which are inconvenient, flawed and not safe.  The Island Site includes provision for elderly people who might use the pavements for walking or on disability scooters causing problems on shared use paths.  Reducing car use to a minimum is desirable to reduce pollution. A full width cycle land (Dutch style) between motor traffic and houses (existing and planned) and footpath has a double benefit.  Residents of the housing and staff in the care home should be encouraged to cycle to reduce pollution. Currently 1% of Kempshott residents' cycle and 80% use the car.  Good bus access to the site is important. Present routes are convoluted and slow.  A strategy for an express bus service to the town centre, including road design should be approved before further housing is approved to the south west of the town.  Planning should allow buses to be replaced by metro-style vehicles (on tracks or with overhead electric wires) as part of an integrated transport strategy to provide sustainable travel.  Buses should not be delayed by cyclists and vice-versa.  Facilities should be provided for cycles to be carried on buses to facilitate access to other parts of the town.  Incremental development sets a bad precedent for further development without adequate provision for transport infrastructure.  A refusal would give a clear message to would-be developers that Basingstoke gives priority to sustainable infrastructure development and to health and safety.  Support comments made by Cycle Basingstoke.

Further comment from Agent

Comments have been received from the Agent in response to the Committee report which are summarised as follows:

 Welcome the wording of the proposed conditions to allow various elements of the proposals to commence independently.  Suggest further alterations to some conditions following discussion with site operators.  If suggested wording is not acceptable then request an adjustment to the recommendation to allow for delegated authority to further discuss options for conditions prior to consent being issued.  Raise concern regarding the reporting of land contamination [page 84] whereby a multitude of trial pits were carried out. Consider that the contamination conditions are not necessary.  The 'Background' section (para 3) of the report somewhat misrepresents the applicant.  The report refers to a landscape specification in the S106 which is a 'guidebook/rulebook' for the whole masterplan setting principles for detailed landscape drawings submitted at reserved matters. 4 of 28

 The Island Site was linked to Phase 4 of the Beggarwood Development. The approved Reserved matters for Phase 4 did not include the Island Site as Structural Open Space.  A detailed scheme for the Island Site was not submitted or pursued by the Council.

Recommendation

The main agenda report sets out the position in relation to affordable housing. Policy CN1 (Affordable Housing) requires that 40% affordable housing should be provided on site thus equating to 40% of the 40 retirement apartments as theC3 Use Class element of the development, (i.e. 16 units) for this proposal. As the Officer report (page 79) states, a supporting Economic Viability Assessment indicates that at the current time, the proposal would generate a negative Residual Land Value and thus is unable to support any affordable housing contribution. As reported this has been independently reviewed by a consultant appointed by the council in accordance with Policy CN1, who agrees with the overall findings.

However, the independent review included a sensitivity analysis to explore what impact higher or lower costs and values would have on the viability of the scheme which has been considered further by officers following the drafting of the main agenda report. This sets out that, were costs to decrease by 5% or sales values increase by 5%, then the scheme could become viable. Given the relative sensitivities in percentage terms, the advice received suggested that the Council may wish to consider a review mechanism should the viability of the scheme improve by the time the scheme is commenced to ascertain whether a financial contribution towards offsite affordable housing could be secured at such a time.

The Local Planning Authority concur with this advice and recommend the inclusion of a clause within the S106 agreement to require a review of the economic viability should any element of this mixed use scheme not be implemented within a period of 24 months from the date of the decision. This approach is considered reasonable in this instance taking account for the mix of units and uses proposed and the developer request for the site to be delivered in different phases through the drafting of conditions. It also provides a reasonable time period within the overall 3 year timescale secured within condition 2 of the recommendation, whereby the applicant's agent has in any event indicated a desire to commence the development at the earliest opportunity.

AMENDED RECOMMENDATION

An alteration to the recommendation is proposed to include a further clause within the S106 agreement to state:

- Affordable Housing - to secure a review of the economic viability of the development and the opportunity to secure a financial contribution towards offsite affordable housing should any phase of the development not commence within 24 months from the date of the decision.

5 of 28

The recommendation in full would therefore read as follows:

The applicant be invited to enter into a legal agreement (in accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and Policies CN6, CN8 and CN9 of the Local Plan 2011-2029) between the applicant and the Borough and County Councils to secure:

 Full Travel Plan with associated set-up and monitoring fees and bond  Financial contribution towards the delivery of sustainable modes of infrastructure along the A30 Winchester Road corridor  Financial contribution towards traffic calming and Traffic Regulation Order on the local highway network  Completion of S278 Agreement to secure provision of a shared use signalised crossing on Beggarwood Lane and provision of footway works and a vehicular junction to link the site to Beggarwood Lane  Financial contribution towards off-site public open space to be put towards infrastructure projects within the 10 year Management Plan for Beggarwood Park.  Affordable Housing - to secure a review of the economic viability of the development and the opportunity to secure a financial contribution towards offsite affordable housing should any phase of the development not commence within 24 months from the date of the decision.

In the event that the legal agreement is completed prior to 25 June 2018 (the implementation date of the Community Infrastructure Levy) the Planning and Development Manager be delegated to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions listed at the end of the report.

In the event that the applicant fails to provide an executed legal agreement on terms set out above prior to the 25 June 2018 the Planning and Development Manager be delegated authority to proceed to determine the application and secure appropriate developer contributions by a combination of Section 106 Planning Obligation and the Council's CIL charging schedule where relevant to the development and subject to the conditions listed at the end of the report. To prevent duplication of developer contributions this is achieved by having regard to those matters which would have been Planning Obligations under Section 106 and which are detailed in the Council's CIL charging regulation 123 infrastructure list, to omit those from the requisite Section 106.

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

Conditions

Following further comments received from the Applicant's Agent, a number of the conditions have been reviewed with regard to the phasing of the development. Where suggestions for minor alterations to the wording to conditions have been deemed reasonable, the conditions have been updated with the wording below to 6 of 28 supersede those conditions within the main report. With the exception of condition 1, the conditions have been provided in full, and for clarification, the amended wording is highlighted in bold.

1 Drawing titled ‘Public House – Proposed Site Plan – drawing no 1278/101 Rev K’ to be replaced with revision O.

3 No development, including any soil moving, vegetation clearance, temporary access construction/ widening, or storage of materials, shall commence on site until a site wide Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include details of the following: a) details of how mature trees adjacent to the area of the proposed development will be protected during the construction works. b) details of mitigation proposals for mitigating any potential adverse effects on bats, reptiles or birds and any features that they are dependent on. This is to include details of measures that will be taken to avoid light spillage along the known bat commuter and foraging routes (as described in Lindsay Carrington Ecological Services letter dated 21/02/2018); c) a framework construction method statement (CMS) setting out the contractors obligations as described in the Addendum to Ecological Appraisal dated Dec 2017; d) provisions for the supervision and monitoring of the plan, including briefing construction personnel, and the name and contact details of the person responsible for this. No development or other operations shall take place in relation to any of the individual phases of the development as detailed within the Phasing Plan (drawing no PP.01 Rev E) other than in complete accordance with the approved Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan. No habitat or other landscape features that are to be retained as part of the approved Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan shall be damaged or destroyed, or removed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority, for the duration of activities permitted by this planning consent. If a habitat or other landscape feature is removed or damaged in contravention of this condition, a scheme of remedial action, with a timetable for implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 28 days of the incident. The scheme of remedial action must be approved by the Local Planning Authority before practical completion of the development and implemented in accordance with the approved timetable. REASON: In the absence of satisfactory details being submitted to accompany the application, details are required to minimise the impact on the existing biodiversity of the site and its surroundings, in accordance with Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

5. No development of individual phases as detailed in the phasing plan (drawing no PP.01 Rev E) shall commence until phase specific Habitat Enhancement and Management Schemes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include, but not be limited to: 7 of 28

 Purpose, aims and objectives for the scheme, taking into account the site's existing biodiversity, results of species surveys and loss of habitats resulting from the development (in particular the plan should focus on enhancements for Noctule bats, invertebrates and chalk grassland habitats);  A full specification and method statement for implementation of the enhancement / habitat creation proposals  Sources of habitat materials (e.g. planting stock and its origin);  Aftercare and long term management;  Timing of the works and timetable for implementation. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the specific buildings hereby permitted being first brought into use and shall thereafter maintained in accordance with the details as approved. REASON: In the absence of satisfactory details being submitted to accompany the application, details are required to secure the protection of species protected under The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 across the site as a whole in accordance with Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

9. None of the individual phases as detailed within the Phasing Plan (drawing no PP.01 Rev E) shall be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of condition 8(c) that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of condition 8(c) has been implemented fully in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority in advance of implementation). Such verification shall comprise;

- as built drawings of the implemented scheme;

- photographs of the remediation works in progress.

Certificates demonstrating that imported and/or material left in situ is free of contamination.

Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the scheme approved under condition 8(c), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance Policy EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

11. No development pursuant to any of the individual phases as detailed within the Phasing Plan (drawing no PP.01 Rev E) shall commence on site until phase specific Construction Environmental Management Plans have been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan must demonstrate the adoption and use of the best practicable means to reduce the 8 of 28

effects of noise, vibration, dust and site lighting. The plan should include, but not be limited to:  Details of compliance with the Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan as approved by condition 3;  Procedures for maintaining good public relations including complaint management, public consultation and liaison;  Arrangements for liaison with the Council’s Environmental Protection Team;  All works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary, or at such other place as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, shall be carried out only between the following hours: 0730 Hours and 18 00 Hours on Mondays to Fridays and 08 00 and 13 00 Hours on Saturdays and; at no time on Sundays, Public and Bank Holidays;  Deliveries to and removal of plant, equipment, machinery and waste from the site must only take place within the permitted hours detailed above.  Mitigation measures as defined in BS 5528: Parts 1 and 2: 2009 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites shall be used to minimise noise disturbance from construction works.  Procedures for emergency deviation of the agreed working hours;  Control measures for dust and other air-borne pollutants;  Measures for controlling the use of site lighting whether required for safe working or for security purposes. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the phase specific Construction Environmental Management Plans. REASON: Details are required in the absence of satisfactory information accompanying the application. The Council encourages all contractors to be ‘Considerate Contractors’ when working in the Borough by being aware of the needs of neighbours and the environment and to protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.

14 No occupation of phases Ph.B (Public House), Ph.D (Care Home) and Ph.F (Specialist Care Home) as detailed within the Phasing Plan (drawing no PP.01 Rev E) shall commence on site until phase specific schemes containing full details of arrangements for internal air extraction, odour control, and discharge to atmosphere from cooking operations, including any external ducting and flues, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works detailed in the approved scheme shall be installed in their entirety before the use hereby permitted is commenced. The equipment shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and operated at all times when cooking is being carried out. REASON: In the absence of satisfactory details being submitted to accompany the application, details are required to protect the residential amenity of nearby receptors and in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

15 The residential accommodation provided at the first floor of the public house hereby permitted shall only be occupied by person(s) mainly or solely employed

9 of 28

at the public house and their spouses/dependents. The accommodation shall not be let, sold off or occupied independently from the public house. REASON: The site is in an area where new dwellings are not normally permitted in accordance with the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policy SS6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

22 Notwithstanding the details submitted, within 6 months of commencement of the individual phases as detailed within the Phasing Plan (drawing no PP.01 Rev E) details of the phase specific hard and soft landscaping plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall comprise (but not be limited to):  Soft landscape details shall include planting plans, specification (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment), schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/ densities where appropriate.  A schedule of tree planting to include the specification of tree planting pits where appropriate with details of any irrigation or drainage infrastructure, tree root barriers (if necessary) to prevent damage or disruption to any proposed hard surfacing or underground services, drains or other infrastructure (including details of the location of external lighting) sufficient to demonstrate how the development is to be serviced without conflict to proposed tree planting, with allowance for reasonable growth.  Hard landscape details shall include the design, type, position and scale of boundary treatments, boundary treatment materials (including finishes/stain) and hardsurfacing materials. Where boundaries cross through differing phases, a consistent approach shall be applied to the design, siting and finishes of boundary treatments.  A programme of landscape implementation. The approved hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and implementation programme with the soft landscaping scheme to be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of species, size and number as originally approved, to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the absence of satisfactory details being submitted to accompany the application, details are required to ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs and in accordance with Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

24. No development above slab level pursuant to phases Ph.E (Retirement Apartments) and PH.F (Specialist Care Facility) as detailed within the Phasing Plan (drawing no PP.01 Rev E) shall commence on site until there has been submitted to and approved in writing full details of the position, design and specification of the proposed acoustic barrier designed to protect the facilities from road traffic noise from the adjacent A30. The approved acoustic barrier 10 of 28

shall be erected before the phases hereby approved are first occupied and shall be retained thereafter in accordance with the approved details. REASON: In the absence of details accompanying the application, details are required to ensure that acceptable noise levels within the dwellings and where practical in some amenity areas are not exceeded in the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

25. No external lighting of the individual phases as detailed within the Phasing Plan (drawing no PP.01 Rev E) shall be installed on the site until full details of any proposed lighting have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved. REASON: Bats are considered highly likely to be using the site for commuting and foraging grounds. These species are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and are a material consideration under Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 – 2029. Any heavy light spillage could have the potential to disturb commuting bats.

26. No development shall take place within phase Ph.A (Access Road) as detailed within the Phasing Plan (drawing no PP.01 Rev E) until full details of the sub- station have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. REASON: In the absence of full details being provided within the application submission, details are required to ensure a satisfactory external appearance in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

30 No development pursuant to any of the individual phases as detailed within the Phasing Plan (drawing no PP.01 Rev E) shall commence on site until phase specific details of the internal movement network, including width, alignment, gradients, all relevant horizontal and longitudinal cross sections showing existing and proposed levels, type of construction, pedestrian crossings including dropped kerbs and method of disposing surface water drainage from the development so it does not discharge onto the public highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The phase specific submissions shall detail how the works to the specific phase shall achieve a cohesive connection to adjoining phases where necessary. REASON: In the absence of satisfactory details being submitted to accompany the application, details are required Details are required in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

31 No individual phase of the development as detailed within the Phasing Plan (drawing no PP.01 Rev E) shall be occupied or brought into use until phase specific Parking and Servicing Management Plans for the internal plots have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby approved and shall thereafter be retained for that specific 11 of 28

purpose. The Parking and Servicing Management Plan should include (but not be limited to): i. Details of the supervision and management of parking/servicing within the site (i.e. supervision of reverse manoeuvring, management of cordoned off parking bays, management of tandem parking bays, etc.) ii. Details of the co-ordination of deliveries/servicing within the development (i.e. use shared providers for the separate plots to minimise the number of servicing trips) iii. Times and frequencies of deliveries/servicing within the development (i.e. highlight peak times within the development by parking accumulation exercise, etc. and demonstrate how servicing trips avoid peak times, such as staff changeover times, visitor hours, peak eating times within the pub, etc.). iv. details of how servicing and deliveries will be coordinated and managed whereby access across differing phases is required (i.e. Phase Ph.A, Ph.C, Ph.D and Ph.F). Access at all times to phase Ph.F (Specialist Care Home) by all types of vehicles shall not be impeded by the servicing and delivery arrangements for Phase Ph.C (Dental Surgery). REASON: In the absence of satisfactory details being submitted to accompany the application, details are required in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.

33. No individual phase of the development as detailed within the Phasing Plan (drawing no PP.01 Rev E) shall be occupied or brought into use until the proposed parking facilities for that specific phase have been laid out in accordance with the approved site layout plan (Dwg. No. GRAI151217_SL.01 Rev. L), including signage and demarcation of disabled bays, with sufficient turning areas provided so that vehicles may enter and leave the site in forward gear and that space shall thereafter be kept available at all times for the intended use. REASON: To ensure the permanent availability of sufficient parking and manoeuvring area within the development in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.

34. Within 6 months from the commencement of the individual phases of the development as detailed within the Phasing Plan (drawing no PP.01 Rev E) full details of the secure cycle parking facilities and the associated means of access suitable for cyclists, including appropriate signage, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the phase specific approved details and thereafter retained for their intended purpose. REASON: In the absence of satisfactory details being submitted to accompany the planning application, details are required in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

12 of 28

36. Within 6 months of commencement of the individual phases of the development as detailed within the Phasing Plan (drawing no PP.01 Rev E) full details (including levels) of the refuse and recycling storage and collection facilities and the associated access routes thereto shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The phase specific approved details shall be constructed and fully implemented prior to the first use/occupation of the buildings hereby approved and shall thereafter be retained for that specific purpose. REASON: In the absence of details being submitted to accompany the planning application, details are required in accordance with Appendix 6 – Storage and Collection of Waste and Recycling of the Basingstoke and Deane Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2008) and in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATIVE

14. The applicant is encouraged to ensure that appropriate internal signage is provided to direct users when accessing the site. Should express consent be required for any directional signage, then this will need to be subject to an application made under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations 1992 which may or may not be forthcoming. The applicant is advised to contact the Planning and Development Manager in this regard.

Item Ref No Address Ward Councillor Recommendation No 2 17/02846/OUT Land At Swing Cllr Onnalee Cubitt Approve subject to Swang Lane, Cllr Sven Godesen Legal Agreement Basingstoke, Cllr Paul Gaskell Hampshire Basing

Agenda Page: 116 Officer Presenting: Nicola Williams

Parish/Town Council: Objectors: In Support: Matthew James Ward Councillor:

Viewing Panel

Members viewed the site on the 8th June 2018. The location of the proposed access was pointed out and the extent of the proposed area to be developed. Members viewed the site in the context of the potential traffic impacts, parking, location of site next to industrial units and countryside as set out in the main report. Many of the Members were already aware of the site having seen it go through the Local Plan process which saw it eventually becoming an allocated site.

13 of 28

Update

Officer Comment

The referendum on the Old Basing Neighbourhood Plan (NP) took place on 7 June 2018 and 86% of voters supported the Plan. As such the NP now forms part of the statutory Development Plan for the Borough. The Plan is due to be formally made at Full Council on 19 July 2018. The report in the main agenda already references the key policies in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan and it is not considered that any of the assessment set out in that report is materially impacted by this update.

At the Site Viewing the following issues were highlighted and are responded to below:

- The function of the Hampshire Clinic has changed recently to take more NHS patients from other services - has the increase in parking demand there and potential overspill onto Basing Road been addressed in the Transport Assessment?

No representations have been received from Hampshire Clinic with respect to these development proposals and there are no significant committed development proposals at the Hampshire Clinic that have not yet been implemented/occupied.

The applicant's Transport Assessment (TA) has taken into account the presence of Hampshire Clinic to the west of this development site. For example, the TA includes observations of the prevailing conditions upon Basing Road including the operation of the Hampshire Clinic's western entrance and eastern exit and the on-street parking that typically takes place along the frontage with Hampshire Clinic.

The supporting Transport Technical Note (TTN) confirms that the provision of the `Principal Accesses` from Basing Road has been the subject of an independent Road Safety Audit (RSA) that included a weekday morning site visit by the Safety Auditors (11 January 2018 at 10:30am).

Paragraph 3.6.2 of the TTN indicates that:

- the RSA took into account the TA, including the traffic flows and speeds along Basing Road, but did not raise any issues with on-street parking that tends to be focused near to Hampshire Clinic;

- the observed demand for on-street parking is not anticipated to interfere with the operation of the Principal Accesses; and

- the Highway Authority may wish to hold funds to enable, if necessary, the provision of parking controls through a formal Traffic Regulation Order (TRO).

Accordingly, the Highways Officer has recommended the inclusion of an obligation for the holding of funds (i.e. a 'Secured Sum') for an initial period of operation to enable, if necessary, the promotion of any parking controls (via a TRO) and this has been included in the recommended obligation that the applicant has to enter into.

14 of 28

In summary, given that the operation of the Hampshire Clinic falls out of the applicant's control, the Highways Officer considers that the submitted TA and TTN (including the independent RSA) together with the proposed S106 planning obligation reasonably takes into consideration the existing highway conditions (including the operation of Hampshire Clinic); and makes provision for possible future parking controls, if necessary, for example to maintain the safe operation of the Principal Accesses, etc.

- Drainage comments were raised at the Site Viewing regarding the sloping nature of the site and the impact on surface water drainage from development of the site.

As indicated in the Officers Report, a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) indicated that surface water run-off from the development would be dealt with by means of filtration and would not increase the flood risk to downstream receptors. The general principles for the surface water drainage proposals have been accepted by the LLFA.

Thames Water has stated that there is sufficient capacity within the existing public foul sewer to receive the additional effluent produced by the allocated development.

No objection has been raised by both Thames Water and the LLFA subject to the submission of a detailed surface water drainage strategy scheme that has been secured by an appropriate condition ie Condition 19 within the Officers Report.

Item Ref No Address Ward Councillor Recommendation No 3 17/02984/FUL Land Off Wiltshire Cllr Tony Jones Approve subject to Crescent, Cllr Stephanie Grant Legal Agreement Basingstoke, Hampshire Buckskin

Agenda Page: 164 Officer Presenting: Patricia Logie

Parish/Town Council: Objectors: Mrs J Cronk In Support: Richard Summers, John Cutler Ward Councillor: Councillor Grant

Viewing Panel

Members viewed the site on the 8th June 2018. The proposed access to the site was pointed out, along with the proposed location of the dwellings. The location of the railway line and allotments were noted. Members viewed the site in the context of the loss of green space, dwelling heights, dwelling density, noise from railway and use of materials, as set out in the main report.

15 of 28

Update

Officer Comment

Lead Local Flood Authority

Additional information has been provided by the applicant and we are awaiting a response from the LLFA. A verbal update will be reported at the meeting.

At the Viewing Members sought clarification on the following points which are responded to in turn below:

Acoustics

With regard to acoustic issues the application was supported by a boundaries plan and a noise and vibration report. The Environmental Health Team has confirmed that the location of the boundaries are acceptable but a condition (13) is required to ensure that the final detailed design and density of the materials to be used is acceptable.

There is no requirement for an acoustic fence adjacent to the railway. The proposed buildings themselves provide a barrier for noise to the rear gardens, but there are fences required between, beside and behind properties that will absorb the noise in the garden areas. Within the buildings the design of the windows will mitigate from railway noise.

Proposed condition 13 requires details to ensure that the proposed fences and windows are constructed to an adequate level.

Materials

The proposal seeks to emulate the existing use of materials within the wider development, with buff bricks on the frontage of Wiltshire Crescent and red brick on the proposed new road. A plan is attached that shows the character of the existing area with regard to materials. Street scene illustrations will be available to view at the meeting.

Proposed condition 6 requires details of materials to be approved and this has been amended slightly to include a requirement for plot identification.

Contamination

Proposed condition 4 requires importation of material and as discussed on page 177 of the main papers the agent has confirmed that is possible, either by removal or reuse of soil on the site.

The Environmental Health Team has reviewed the comment on page 177 of the main report and confirmed that the using of site won material under roads, parking areas etc is acceptable. There would however need to be a robust remediation method statement (RMS) before these works took place to ensure that this will take place and avoid contaminated material being present in gardens. Therefore an additional 16 of 28 condition is proposed as set out below.

AMENDED CONDITIONS

4. The intended ground levels required in Condition 3 shall demonstrate compliance with the following:

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority a report proving that a minimum cover system of 400mm subsoil/topsoil has been installed in garden areas and a cover system of 300mm minimum has been installed in communal or landscaped areas. Certificates and photos demonstrating that a) sufficient sampling of imported material has taken place and b) the imported material is free from unacceptable levels of contamination. Sampling should take place in situ at a frequency of 1 per 100m3.

If any existing material on site is to be reused on the site then the report shall include a Remediation Method Statement (RMS) BEFORE any landscaping or work to change the levels on site is commenced. The document should detail all the material removal and re-use works to ensure that contaminated soil is not re-used in garden areas and adequate depth is allowed for the 400mm topsoil due to be imported. The scheme must include a timetable of works and site management procedures and the nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

6. Notwithstanding the detail shown on the approved plans no development above damp proof course shall commence on-site until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the hereby permitted new dwellings have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The submitted details should include samples, including on-site sample panels as applicable, along with details of brick bonding and mortar / render colour and texture and confirmation which materials are being used on which plot. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the approved schedule.

REASON: To preserve or enhance the visual amenity and landscape quality of the area and in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

17 of 28

Item Ref No Address Ward Councillor Recommendation No 4 17/03849/FUL Field Adjoining The Cllr Venetia Refuse White Hart, Reading Rowland Road, Sherfield-on- Cllr Nicholas Loddon Robinson Bramley And Sherfield

Agenda Page: 206 Officer Presenting: Lisa Souden

Parish/Town Council: Objectors: Mrs S and Dr G Brain In Support: Mr D Maddox, Mr G Mills Ward Councillor:

Viewing Panel

Members viewed the site on the 8th June 2018. Members were met on site by Ward Councillor Rowland. The location of the proposed accesses were pointed out and the relationship of the site to neighbouring properties and the A33 were appreciated. Members viewed the site in the context of the noise impact upon external amenity areas including acoustic fencing, similar other residential development along the A33 corridor and the issue of noise, boundary treatment, the contribution that the development would have with regard to the delivery of housing within Sherfield-on- Loddon and the site's relationship to the White Hart; as set out in the Committee Report.

Update

Cllr Rowland's formal request for the application to be considered at the Development Control Committee was received after the agenda was finalised. It is worded as follows:

"Sherfield on Loddon is required under the Local Plan Policy SS5 - Neighbourhood Planning

A further 150 homes will need to be identified in areas outside of those listed above and it will be necessary to identify sites/opportunities to deliver at least 10 homes within and adjacent to each of the settlements with defined Settlement Policy Boundaries. The council will support the relevant parish/town council and other representatives from local communities to identify the most appropriate means of meeting this requirement, through Neighbourhood Planning, rural exceptions schemes, or a review of Settlement Policy Boundaries. The delivery of housing which meets the requirements of this policy will be monitored annually by the council to ensure the housing requirement is met and the council reserves the right to identify opportunities to address any shortfall through the DPD process. For the five named settlements, if a neighbourhood plan/neighbourhood development order (Regulation 16) has not been submitted by April 2017, the council 18 of 28 will consider the need to allocate additional sites.

Sherfield on Loddon's Neighbour Plan does not identify sites within it. However H2: NEW HOUSING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF LOCAL PLAN POLICY SS5

The Parish Council will support appropriate proposals for new housing within or adjacent to the Sherfield on Loddon Settlement Policy Boundary which meets the requirements of Local Plan Policy SS5.

Once the requirement for Policy SS5 has been met, proposals for development on sites outside the village of Sherfield on Loddon that are adjacent to the Sherfield on Loddon Settlement Policy Boundary will be subject to relevant Local Plan policies for new housing in the countryside.

6.2.13 The Parish Council accepts the requirement raised by Local Plan Policy SS5 but given the lack of obvious available sites within the Sherfield on Loddon Settlement Policy Boundary it may need to be met by a small-scale development adjacent to the Sherfield on Loddon Settlement Policy Boundary.

POLICY H3: PROVISION OF HOUSING TO MEET LOCAL NEEDS

All proposals for new housing developments within the Parish must demonstrate how the types of homes provided will contribute to a balanced mix of housing in Sherfield on Loddon Parish and meet the needs identified in the Action Hampshire Housing Needs Survey. In all new housing development providing affordable housing, the occupancy of all affordable homes will be prioritised for households with a local connection with the Parish of Sherfield on Loddon as defined by the BDBC Housing Allocations Scheme and any relevant planning policy guidance.

This application is supported by the Parish Council as it is the only site within the location to meet the needs of the Local Plan."

Consultations

Local Highway Authority: Comments on amended plans: Recommend refusal – not demonstrated development would provide adequate on-site vehicle parking provision and that vehicle parking would not cause undue interference and obstruction of the internal vehicle movement network and would not cause or encourage the parking of vehicles on the public highway, in particular within visibility splays, causing detriment to highway safety; vehicle manoeuvring space for all vehicles likely to attend the site; and storage (prior to disposal) for refuse and recycling facilities to ensure convenient arrangements for disposal of refuse and recycling.

Officer Comment

Members at the Viewing Panel enquired as to why noise mitigation was not required for a scheme at Hillacre and the Old Dairy in Chineham which are also located adjacent to the A33. It is believed that Members are referring to applications 14/00699/FUL at Hillacre and 16/04639/FUL at the Old Dairy. Both applications were supported by noise impact assessments that demonstrated that external noise levels in the garden areas of the proposed dwellings would be at or below 55 dB 19 of 28

LAeq and were the subject of conditions with regard to noise mitigation.

ADDITIONAL REASON FOR REFUSAL

5. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated to the standard required by the Local Planning Authority that the proposed development would provide adequate: i) on-site vehicle parking provision and that vehicle parking would not cause undue interference and obstruction of the internal vehicle movement network and would not cause or encourage the parking of vehicles on the public highway, in particular within visibility splays, causing detriment to highway safety; ii) vehicle manoeuvring space for all vehicles likely to attend the site; and iii) storage (prior to disposal) for refuse and recycling facilities to ensure convenient arrangements for disposal of refuse and recycling in the interests of general amenity and to ensure that no obstruction is caused, in particular to pedestrians, along the internal movement network.

As such the proposed development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 and Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029

Item Ref No Address Ward Councillor Recommendation No 5 18/00412/FUL Land At Court Drove, Cllr Ian Tilbury Approve subject to Court Drove, Cllr Colin Phillimore Legal Agreement Overton Overton, Laverstoke And Steventon

Agenda Page: 231 Officer Presenting: Lisa Souden

Parish/Town Council: Jane Dooley Objectors: Mrs M Oram In Support: Marcus Beale Ward Councillor: Councillor Tilbury, Councillor Phillimore

Viewing Panel

Members viewed the site on 8th June 2018 and were met on site by the applicant, Parish Council Members and Local Ward Councillors. The location of the proposed access to the site was highlighted to members, along with the extent of the development in each direction. Members viewed the site in the context of on-street parking in relation to the nearby Overton Church of Primary School and landscaping details, as set out in the main report.

Update

Planning addendum statement received from agent on 12.06.2018 confirming the following; 20 of 28

1. Page 3, section 1.2 of the Design and Access Statement P3 refers to the site area being 0.46 hectares. It is now 0.67 hectares. 2. Page 8, section 3.2 of the Design and Access Statement P3 refers to the site area being 0.46 hectares. It is now 0.67 hectares. 3. Page 3, Figure 1 of the Design and Access Statement P3 aerial view image refers to the previous site boundary. The revised site boundary is illustrated in drawing 570/001 P3 Location Plan. 4. Page 4, Figure 2 of the Design and Access Statement P3 site introduction image refers to the previous site boundary. The revised site boundary is illustrated in drawing 570/001 P3 Location Plan. 5. Page 5, Figure 3 of the Design and Access Statement P3 site analysis drawing refers to the previous site boundary. The revised site boundary is illustrated in drawing 570/001 P3 Location Plan. 6. Page 6, Figure 8 of the Design and Access Statement P3 Site Landscape Plan 014 P4 refers to the previous site boundary. The revised boundary is shown on the revised drawing is 570/014 P5.

Consultations

Ward Councillor Tilbury: 'From the outset I raised concerns over the inclusion of this site in the ONP on the grounds of road safety as any additional housing development in this area will only add to the already acute parking problems around Overton Primary School. This has been an insoluble problem for many years, one I witnessed first-hand when walking my own children to school. Given the school is soon to undergo expansion to create over a hundred more places the volume of traffic will inevitably increase. Residents of neighbouring Lordsfield Gardens are already inconvenienced by inconsiderate parking. The proposed site entrance for this new estate will remove 6 or more on road parking spaces, which will only add to the problem.

There are major differences in parking and traffic flows between morning and afternoon. In the morning the majority of parents drop their children off when the gates open at around 8:40am and leave immediately, with the exception of those with reception and playschool age children, who will park and escort them into the school.

In the afternoon virtually all parents arrive from 2:45 onwards and park and wait until the children are let out at 3:30pm.

The applicants Transport Statement includes figures which bear little relationship to reality. They are not supported by my experience, or the figure supplied by OPC which show around 50% more cars parked in the area. While it is claimed the photographs in the TA were taken at school pick-up time, again this is not borne out by the lack of traffic, vehicular or pedestrian.

I would therefore request that you visit the site yourself between 3pm and 3:30pm, preferably when it is raining, to gauge the extent of the parking and traffic problems in this area.

The TA suggests the imposition of both parking and loading restrictions either side of the proposed access for at least 10m. Given the highway visibility splays extend for 21 of 28

38m in either direction. This suggests that to avoid these being compromised parking restrictions would need to extend at least that far in either direction.

It is now clear that this site was too small to allow the construction of 14 properties, particularly as with at least 6 being self-build they would inevitably be detached. To allow enough space for 14 properties the site has now been extended well outside the boundary set in the ONP. While this is the only practical way around the problem, it merely serves to illustrate the fundamental flaws in the ONP site selection.'

Urban Design Officer: Final Comments 'I raise no objection to the layout, streetscene and levels of residential amenity of the amended plans. The amendments have addressed the concerns raised in my response of 20 April 2018. I have no objection to the proposed elevations for units 6, 7 and 9 to 14 to be determined in detail with this application. I have no objection to the Self Build Design Code for the other units (nos. 1 to 5 and 8) which provides an appropriate balance between securing a comprehensive approach to the scheme and allowing each self- builder to come forward with their own design.'

Local Highway Authority: Comments

'There are no significant committed development proposals at the Overton Primary School that have not yet been implemented or occupied. The independent Road Safety Audit (RSA) as included within Appendix B of the Transport Statement (TS) considered the suitability of the proposed access arrangements.

The RSA site visit was conducted on a school day at pick-up time (2:30pm on Thursday 20 July 2017) and the Audit Team remained on-site observing both traffic conditions and the existing infrastructure as well as discussing the road safety aspects of the proposals for a 75 minute period. The RSA site visit included a walk and drive around the local highway network to include each approach to the proposed access. The RSA did not raise any fundamental highway safety problems, albeit that the RSA did recommend the provision of additional parking controls adjacent to the proposed new access and suitable road markings (i.e. give-way markings) within the proposed new access.

The Applicant has incorporated the RSA recommendations by confirming funding for the provision (if necessary) of any additional parking controls via a Traffic Regulation Order (i.e. the 'On-Street Parking Secured Amount' as per bullet point 4 on page 231 of the main report) and the provision of give-way road markings within the proposed new access into the development, which would be consistent with the existing junction to the south with Lordsfield Gardens.

Future residents of this development would be buying into the location near to a school therefore occupiers may be inclined to time their journeys on school days to avoid the prevailing conditions at the beginning and end of the school day.'

No objection subject to conditions.

22 of 28

AMENDED CONDITION 10

10. No development shall take place until a comprehensive and detailed Construction Method Statement, which fully takes into account the presence of 'Overton Church of England Primary School' and the presence of vulnerable highway users (young children, etc.) especially at the beginning and end of the school day and demonstrates safe and coordinated systems of work affecting or likely to affect the public highway and or all motorised and or non-motorised highway users, 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 include for: i. means of direct access (temporary or permanent) to the site from the adjoining maintainable public highway; ii. the parking and turning of vehicles of site operatives and visitors off carriageway (all to be established within one week of the commencement of development); iii. loading and unloading of plant and materials away from the maintainable public highway; iv. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development away from the maintainable public highway; v. wheel washing facilities or an explanation why they are not necessary; vi. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; vii. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; viii. a scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway, particularly during the Monday to Friday AM peak (07.30 to 09.30) and PM peak (14.30 to 18:00) periods, and in particular at the beginning and end of the school day. ix. the routes to be used by construction traffic to access and egress the site so as to avoid undue interference with the safety and operation of the public highway and adjacent roads, including construction traffic holding areas both on and off the site as necessary.

REASON: In the absence of details being provided to accompany the planning application, details are required to ensure that the construction process is undertaken in a safe and convenient manner that limits impact on local roads and the amenities of nearby occupiers, the area generally and in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS

31. No development shall commence until junction visibility splays of 2.4m (X- distance) by 38m (Y-distance) to the left and right on exit from the development at the intersection with Court Drove as indicated in-principle by the 'Site Access Proposal' drawing (Dwg. No. ITB12546-GA-005 Rev. C) by i-Transport have been provided. Thereafter these junction visibility splays shall be permanently kept free of obstructions between 0.6m and 2.0m above the level of the adjacent carriageway 23 of 28

(Court Drove) for the life of the development.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan.

32. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall take place on site until full details of the method of construction of the means of access (including the uncontrolled pedestrian crossings on Court Drove) as indicated in-principle by the 'Site Access Proposal' drawing (Dwg. No. ITB12546-GA-005 Rev. C) by i-Transport have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority (Hampshire County Council). The submitted details shall include the width, alignment, gradient and type of construction and surfacing of the means of access (including the uncontrolled pedestrian crossings on Court Drove) including all relevant horizontal cross sections and longitudinal sections showing the existing and proposed levels, road markings (including give-way markings), tactile paving, together with the method of disposing of surface water so as to prevent the discharge of surface water and loose material into the publicly maintained highway (Court Drove). Thereafter the agreed details shall be fully implemented before the use hereby approved is commenced or the first dwelling occupied whichever is the sooner.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan.

33. Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification), no access control measures, including gates, barriers or any other obstructions which could impede the passage of motor vehicles between the publicly maintained highway (Court Drove) and the onsite parking, manoeuvring and turning facilities shall be installed along the access to the site.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATIVES

7. Consent under the Town and Country Planning Acts must not be taken as approval for any works carried out on any footway, including a Public Right of Way, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the publicly maintained highway. The development involves works within the publicly maintained highway. It is an offence to commence those works without the permission of the Local Highway Authority, Hampshire County Council. In the interests of highway safety, the development must not commence on-site until permission (e.g. Highway Licence/Agreement) has been obtained from the Local Highway Authority authorising the undertaking of the works within the publicly maintained highway. Website: https://www.hants.gov.uk/transport

8. The Applicant is advised to give early consideration to the detailed design and the undertaking of the construction activities in consultation with 'Overton Church of England Primary School' (https://www.overtonprimary.co.uk/) so as to avoid any undue interruptions to the safe, unhindered and free flow of highway users, including 24 of 28 the vulnerable users associated with Overton Primary School (especially at the beginning and end of the school day) for the full duration of the construction activities. The Local Highway Authority (Hampshire County Council) will not agree to any proposal to interfere with the publicly maintained highway in a manner which would prejudice highway safety.

9. The planning permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to obstruct the publicly maintained highway by the erection of scaffolding, hoarding or other device or apparatus for which a licence must be sought from the Local Highway Authority (Hampshire County Council).

10. In accordance with established Road Safety Audit procedures (HD 19/15), the Applicant is reminded of the necessity to ensure that the future independent Stage 2, 3 and 4 Road Safety Audits are undertaken, any identified problems and recommendations formally considered by the Design Organisation, with any necessary mitigation measures being appropriately implemented and progressed at the detailed design, implementation and operational phases of this development.

11. If it is the Applicant's intention to offer any part of the internal movement network (i.e. the estate road, pedestrian routes, etc.) included in this application for adoption as publicly maintainable highways, permission under the Town and Country Planning Act must not be construed as approval to the highway engineering details necessary for inclusion in an Agreement under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980.

Item Ref No Address Ward Councillor Recommendation No 6 17/04182/FUL Concrete Cottages , Cllr John Izett Refuse Sydmonton Road, Cllr Graham Old Burghclere Falconer Burghclere, Highclere And St Mary Bourne

Agenda Page: 267 Officer Presenting: Russell Stock

NO PUBLIC SPEAKING AS PREVIOUSLY UNDERTAKEN AT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE MEETING OF 11TH APRIL 2018

Update

A letter of representation was received on the 08/06/18 objecting to the proposals, the contents are as summarised:

 this is an historic building, very early and rare surviving use of concrete, circa 1870, before 1873/72  they are a tribute to the Statesman 4th Earl of Carnarvon, who was involved with important building work at Highclere and at Portofino in Italy  the building is highly innovative for its time and should be retained 25 of 28

 the building should be replaced by something suitably startling and novel rather than the very uninteresting buildings proposed

Item Ref No Address Ward Councillor Recommendation No 7 18/00475/FUL Land At Dark Lane Cllr Tristan Refuse Allotments, Dark Robinson Lane, Sherborne St John Sherborne St. John

Agenda Page: 293 Officer Presenting: Russell Stock

Parish/Town Council: Objectors: Mr M Perman In Support: Mr N Cobbold Ward Councillor:

Viewing Panel

Members viewed the site on the 8th June 2018. Members were met on site by the applicant. The location of the proposed assesses were pointed out along Dark Lane. Views into the site were afforded from the sites existing entrance located on the junction of Dark Lane and Kiln Road. Members observed the site's relationship with neighbouring properties and the surrounding Conservation Area. Members also viewed the site in the context of the site entrance, visibility splays and boundary trees/hedging, flooding and previous uses of the land.

Update

Officer Comment

Flood Risk

The applicant submitted a Flood Risk Assessment on the 07/06/18, prepared by UNDA Consulting Limited in support of their application. The report finds that the risk would appear to be predominantly pluvial and groundwater related. The site is located within a designated Critical Drainage Area (where the drainage network might be a full capacity) and upstream of a Critical Drainage Area.

The reports also finds that there has been no historical fluvial or pluvial flooding known to have occurred on the site, however in 2010 and 2014 it is noted that groundwater flooding occurred in close proximity to the site. These dates would correlate to those referenced within a number of the representations received. The report however concludes that given the sites location within Flood Zone 1 (Low Probability), post development, there will be no loss of floodplain storage.

A full Surface Water Drainage Strategy has been undertaken in support of the proposed planning application. The report finds that in order to mitigate flood risk 26 of 28 posed by post development runoff, adequate control measures will be required within the site.

The submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Reports state that "Surface water runoff from the development will be discharged at a restricted rate of 0.6 l/s, into the perimeter drain which is routed along the eastern boundary of the site. On- site storage will be provided within a tanked permeable paving Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) designed to accommodate the 1 in 100 year storm event including an extra 40% capacity for future climate change. The system will be enclosed within an impermeable membrane to prevent groundwater ingress and would act as a tank, receiving runoff directly from the hardstanding areas, and runoff from the adjacent roofs via incoming pipes".

Due to the presence of clay sub soils, a high groundwater table, and emerging springs, infiltration based drainage is not proposed. As a precautionary measure, all finished floor levels of the proposed dwellings are raised a minimum of 300mm above surrounding finished ground levels.

The proposed drainage infrastructure will be maintained privately.

The Groundwater Conditions Report also advises that the springs beneath the beds supply the vast majority of their inflow; only 0.13% is calculated to be derived from the site. Collecting runoff from the site for disposal to the perimeter drain will therefore have a negligible impact upon the supply of water replenishing the beds. Notwithstanding that the water supply from the site is relatively insignificant, the shallow depth of the proposed SUDS will ensure that groundwater flows are not obstructed as a result of the development.

Therefore in light of the findings set out within the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and the proposed mitigation measures set out within the Surface Water Drainage Strategy, reason for refusal No 3 is no longer considered necessary. Should all other matters have been found acceptable, conditions securing these flood/drainage mitigation details would have been imposed.

Trees

Further comments were received on the 07/06/18 from the applicant's arboriculturist which provide some information with regards to construction within Root Protection Areas (RPA's). These comments do not overcome the concerns raised in relation to the trees on and adjoining the site and therefore reason for refusal No 4 is still considered appropriate.

AMENDED RECOMMENDATION

Amended recommendation to remove reason for refusal number 3 (flooding/drainage) and consequent re-numbering of reasons. Therefore the recommended reasons for refusal are now as follows:

1. The proposed development by virtue of its scale, bulk, design and layout and the amount of hard surfacing, would represent an incongruous and cramped form of development that would dominate the site and appear unduly prominent within the 27 of 28 context of the street scene. The proposed development would fail to integrate within the surroundings and would be harmful to the verdant character and visual amenity of the area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Polices EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, Policy 2 of the Sherborne St John Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2029 and the Sherborne St John Village Design Statement 2004.

2. The proposed development would harm the open verdant character of the site and its positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Sherborne St John Conservation Area, by virtue of the introduction of built development of a notable scale and the extent of vertical massing and large areas of hard surfacing, in harmful contrast with the fundamentally undeveloped nature of the application site which is significant to its contribution to the character of the village as a village-edge remnant and as an Open Area of Townscape Significance. As such, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the Sherborne St John Conservation Area and be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (Sections 7 and 12), Policies EM1, EM10 and EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, Policy 2 of the Sherborne St John Neighbourhood Plan, the guidance contained within Sherborne St John Conservation Area Appraisal, the Sherborne St John Village Design Statement and Appendix 4 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (Conservation Areas).

3. The proposed development cannot be constructed without causing harm to the existing trees and hedgerows which make a positive contribution towards the character and appearance of the Sherborne St John Conservation Area. This is contrary to core planning principles (Section 7) of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to secure high quality design and good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Accordingly the proposal would be contrary Policies EM1, EM10 and EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.

28 of 28