Major Application
Cttee: 28/07/2010 Item No. 01
Application no: BDB/71787 For Details and Plans Click here
Site Address Land at O/S ref 465333 144185, Herriard Common, Bagmore Lane, Herriard, Basingstoke, RG25 2QA Proposal Change of use of woodland for proposed outdoor pursuits paintball centre including erection of compound containerised buildings and provision of car parking area
Registered: 19/01/2010 Expiry Date: 20/04/2010 Type of Full planning Case Officer: Claire Cook Application: permission 01256 845444 Applicant: Skirmish Lasham Agent: Mursell & Company Partners (Newbury) Limited Ward: Upton Grey and The Ward Member(s): Cllr M Ruffell Candovers Parish: Herriard OS Grid Reference: 465333,144185
Recommendation: Approve
General Comments
This application is brought to the Development Committee in line with the scheme of delegation, due to the number of objections received and the Officer recommendation for approval.
Description of Site
Herriard Common is located to the south of Bagmore Lane which connects to the A339. The application site is a roughly triangular measuring 24.2 hectares in size. The site is currently a plantation woodland managed under a long-term plan approved by the Forestry Commission. The site is a Site of Important Nature Conservation (SINC) and there are several notable species which have been recorded in the woodland. The woodland itself consists of conifer and broadleaf planting.
The site is currently accessed by a vehicular access to the northern part of the site. The access has an existing gate set back from the road. Bagmore Lane is a rural road which when approaching the site from the east bends round a corner and the land declines down to the entrance to the site. The entrance to Bell Lane is approximately 90m to the east of the site at the crest of the hill.
There are hard core tracks which run around the perimeter of the application site. A Bridleway runs along the southern boundary of the site.
1 of 70 Proposal
This application seeks planning permission for the use of a managed woodland as an outdoor pursuits paintball centre. It is proposed that the forestry operations would still continue on the site alongside the paintball activity. The application includes:
The erection of compound buildings (converted sea containers) which would provide 220m² of building space. The containers would be profiled metal and camouflage painted, at a maximum height of 2.42m. These would form team seating areas, kitchen, W.C, first aid area, kit stores etc.
The proposal includes: 9 games areas of varying sizes and shapes, only 7 game areas would be used at any one time. The game areas would be linked by 2m wide woodchip and bark paths which would predominantly utilise the existing rides;
The provision of a 70 space gravel car parking area, (including two disabled spaces). The parking spaces would be defined by logs pinned to the ground;
Site entrance alterations, including improvements to visibility sightlines, increasing the size of the access (requiring the removal of a Scott’s Pine Tree) and upgrading of the entrance hard standing and creation of gravel passing bays. The display of a removable highway sign on the verge to the north of the entrance to the site which would read ‘Skirmish Paintball Entrance’;
The erection of 0.9m high post and rail fence along the southern boundary of the application site, along the bridleway. This would include the display of 5 signs attached to the fence which would read ‘Private Paintball Activity Area’;
Low level lighting on wooden bollard's to serve proposed car park and downward lighting below roof level in reception/ compound areas ( no lighting for game areas is proposed); and
The provision of waste disposal container and a cess-pit.
An Ecological Assessment, Flood Risk Assessment and Travel Plan have been submitted as part of the application.
The hours of opening proposed are 09.15-16.30 Monday to Sundays (including Bank Holidays) and it has been confirmed that the main season runs between March to November.
At the previous site, during weekdays the site would attract approximately 20-50 visitors a day, and during weekends between 20-150 on Saturday and 20-60 on Sunday. The maximum capacity would be reached between 20-30 times a year. The proposal would employ 20 part-time workers.
The Paintball Centre was previously located in Lasham for in excess of 15 years. However, the lease on the land was not renewed earlier this year and the use of this site has since ceased. The applicant is therefore seeking to locate the business at the application site.
Relevant Planning History
None. 2 of 70
Consultations
Cllr Ruffell: Objection.
‘I wish to object to the proposed paintball pursuit centre at Herriard Common. It is my view that it would generate an unacceptable increase in traffic through the parishes of my ward, as people unfamiliar with the countryside were directed to the site. Bagmore Lane has seen its share of tragedies in the past and the entrance to the proposed site is close to several notorious bends. It is my view that the proposed activity would have a detrimental effect upon the biodiversity of the woodland and in general represents an urbanisation of the countryside. It would disturb wildlife by its presence and by its noise and it would set an unfortunate precedent for further expansion of its activities in the future. I would urge the committee to refuse the application'.
Herriard Parish Council: Objection.
‘In commenting on the latest amendment to this application, the Parish Council has asked me to provide the following summary of a public meeting it held on June 23rd. The meeting was called to allow questions to be asked directly of Skirmish Lasham Partners represented by Lawrence Barwick and was attended by over 30 residents. Issues raised included concerns about noise, damage to wildlife, flora and fauna but mainly focused on the consequences of increased traffic. Herriard Parish Council has already objected to the application because of its traffic implications. Lawrence Barwick was asked to summarise the Travel Plan which has been submitted as the latest amendment to BDB 71787. Whilst the aim of the plans was considered worthy, overall, it was felt that the constraints of public transport in this area would inevitably mean that the vast majority of users of the proposed facility would still travel in private cars. Lawrence Barwick did not disagree with this. The effectiveness of suggested car-sharing measures could not be quantified but there was little confidence from the meeting of this having a meaningful effect on the number of vehicle movements.
Traffic management measures in and around Herriard were mentioned and the PC stated that while it continued to press for speed restrictions and other calming solutions, these were being developed in relation to existing concerns about traffic conditions and were quite separate from its position on BDB 71787.
No residents spoke in favour of the application and towards the end of the meeting on parishioner made the following summary statements:
Will the proposed change of use cause increased noise? Yes Will the proposed change of use cause damage to the wildlife, flora and fauna? Yes Will the proposed change of use cause increased traffic load? Yes
There was no disagreement with these statements. The Parish Council’s objection to this application is unchanged’.
Comments 21/04/2010
'Members of Herriard Parish Council have now reviewed these new details but do not find any basis on which to change their original position on this application’.
3 of 70 Initial comments 09/02/2010
‘Traffic in and around Herriard has been a concern for villagers and an action focus for the Parish Council some time. The village has witnessed many traffic accidents over recent years, some of them fatal, and parishioners, along with the Parish Council are naturally adverse to any developments that might exacerbate this situation.
It is inevitable that traffic loads, particularly along Bagmore Lane and at its junction with the A339- a notorious accident black-spot, would be dramatically intensified before and after sessions if the paintball scheme went ahead. Along Bagmore Lane, many residents have restricted visibility due to the road geometry- meaning that traffic from the Ellisfield direction is almost impossible to see as residents exit their properties. Since many of these properties are also very close to the road, the potential increase in traffic noise would also be objectionable. Accepting that there might be some (unquantified) benefit to local commerce, Herriard Parish council therefore objects to application BDB 71787 on the basis that it would lead to an unacceptable increase in local traffic with consequent additional risk and loss of amenity for village residents and road users’.
Ellisfield Parish Council: Objection.
‘Having reviewed the amendments, Ellisfield Parish Council continue to support the concerns of local residents that the proposed development of the site at Herriard Common for paintballing is not appropriate in such a rural area and don’t consider the recent amendments address concerns which mainly focus on increased traffic, noise and disruption to wildlife and other users in the area, notably walkers and horse-riders, all of whom enjoy the countryside without affecting others, something we fear the paintballing will not achieve’
Comments 27/04/10
‘In response to your letter dated 13 March, I am writing to confirm that Ellisfield Parish Council continue to support the concerns of local residents that the proposed development of the site at Herriard Common for paintballing is not appropriate in such a rural area. Having carefully examined the recent amendments, none of these has done anything to address concerns which mainly focus on increased traffic, noise and disruption to wildlife and other users of the area, notably walkers and horse-riders, all of whom enjoy the countryside without affecting others, something we fear the paintballing will not achieve’.
Initial comments (08/02/10)
‘Ellisfield Parish Council support the objections made by local residents both in the village and from surrounding areas including Herriard and Moundsmere. The proposed site is adjacent to a bridleway and clearly the noise of paintballing activity is potentially frightening to horses. Similarly paintballing noise will adversely affect use of Bagmore Lane by rider (it is well used by local stables as an exercise circuit and by walkers, runners and cyclist including local cycling clubs. The operation of the site will definitely increase the traffic on Bagmore Lane and the Herriard to Upton Grey Road, already used as rat runs. Whilst the operator may argue that the increased traffic will only be 70 cars in and out (we understand that 6 paintballing games of 30 people making 180 people could occur simultaneously) these traffic movements will be bunched at the beginning and end of the day and there is no viable public transport alternative. Wendy Fabian, Inspector appointed by the Secretary Of State fro Communities and Local Government on planning application BDB 63357 commented in reasons for rejection on planning appeal, paragraphs 6 & 7, the 4 of 70 danger of any extra traffic in the lanes in and around Ellisfield and surrounding villages. Another concern is that the noise will carry across the valley to the houses in Ellisfield on Bell Lane. Lastly, the proposed site is in a truly rural area and the activity on the site and increased traffic on approach roads will detract from the tranquillity and beauty of the area’.
Preston Candover & Nutley Parish Council: Objection.
‘Preston Candover & Nutley Parish Council objects on the grounds of the additional traffic which this application would generate through the parish and in Axford in particular. The assumption in the Travel Plan is that “a small proportion (of traffic) will approach from the west via the B3046, turning off at Axford along Berrydown Lane or at Preston Candover along Red Lane”. The practice of rat running through the villages to the west of the A339, to avoid the notorious bottleneck at the junction of the A339/A30 at the venture roundabout is well known and the likelihood is more that the Skirmish Paintball traffic will aggravate the situation’.
Previous comments (08/02/10):
‘I am the chairman of the above PC but the following are my own comments as there has not been an opportunity to consult the Parish Council, whose next meeting is on the 22nd Feb. I am concerned on two counts:
1. Traffic on the C 18. This road is extremely narrow in parts and already carried traffic cutting through from the A303 at the Wheatsheaf Pub to the A339 at Herriard. The proposed development would significantly increase traffic, and add to the danger on this dangerous road.
2. Disturbance to neighbouring houses and to wildlife:
This is a beautiful and quiet rural site. Whatever is done in the way of attempted noise reduction, nest boxes, bat boxes etc, the presence of 70 cars, and excited noisy human beings on a daily basis will destroy the tranquillity of lovely wood and frighten away most of the wildlife’.
Local Highway Authority: No objection raised in relation to amendments.
Comments 19/04/2010 I note on the following drawings that: R.10.01/P5B indicates the required visibility sightlines X = 2.4m by Y (left) = 160m and Y (right) = 80m to the crest of the rise; although these are outside of the original red line for the site they will require a Condition; R.10.01/P3A indicates the construction cross-section for the car park and access road; although together with the means of access entrance these will be covered by a Condition; R.10.01/P9A indicates that the sign proposed opposite the development entrance, pointing to the site, has been removed from the application (previously shown on drawing P9). This has been a highways recommended requirement for the development since the pre- application enquiry ENQ/27519 was made in September 2009. The signage was proposed to make highway users, both visiting the site and using Bagmore Lane, aware of the potential for vehicles entering and leaving the carriageway at this location. I understand 5 of 70 the removal of the sign from the application is because it is outside the application red line, however, so are the visibility sightlines. Therefore, will it be acceptable to apply a Grampian Condition related to the installation of the sign before the site becomes operational? R.10.01/P3A indicates the construction cross-section of the internal tracks and car parking areas; a Condition will be required regarding the construction of the immediate means of access and location of the gate, plus numbers of vehicle parking and cycle parking places. With the exception of the sign at the entrance, the Conditions proposed on 26 January 2010 all apply.
Initial comments 28/01/2010
Trip Generations: The existing site is located within the vicinity being situated at Lasham. Movements to the site with start/finish times 0915 to 13.00 and 13.30 to 16.30, indicate arrivals and departures should generally be slightly outside normal weekday peak periods. With the existing site located at Lasham vehicle movements will generally already be using the surrounding highway network. Parking for 70 customer vehicles is proposed and mention is also made that coaches arrive and depart. The Applicant has assessed that based on their existing use this number of spaces is “neither too many or too few”; as a specialist use there is no standard. However, there is scope within the site layout to provide additional spaces if so required and the reception area is remote from the public highway, therefore overflow parking on the public highway is extremely unlikely. Provision for cycle parking should also be incorporated into the development and scope exists to provide a minimum 6 secure cycle places. The Applicant includes within the Design & Access Statement references to how they encourage users (and staff) of the facility to travel via modes other than the private car. I believe my colleagues in Transport Strategy will require that these details be incorporated into a formal Travel Plan (please consult Peter Smith) The Applicant proposes additional vehicle passing places along the access route from the public highway, these are essential to avoid any tailbacks towards the public highway. The proposal to reconstruct the entrance from the carriageway to the new gated entrance (width 5.5m & set back 14m) is essential to ensure the width and surface is substantial enough to provide safe passage of vehicles both to and from the site and along Bagmore Lane. Visibility: Bagmore Lane is a national speed limit road, i.e. 60 mph and vehicles make swift passage along it, including large HGVs. The view right at the access sees the carriageway rise towards Bell Lane with trees located at the edge of the carriageway near this junction. The Y distance indicated on drawing R10.01/P5 is 58m this distance MUST be maximised to achieve visibility to the crest looking right along Bagmore Lane a distance of approximately 80 metres, I note the view looking left will be improved to achieve Y = 160m and both these visibility sight lines are essential to maintain highway safety. Signage: I note that a free standing ‘A-frame’ is intended on the opposite side of the road to the entrance, although no details are provided and I question whether the land is within the control of the Applicant to facilitate this provision; whilst the principle is acknowledged details are required before I could consider making a firm evaluation and any unsolicited 6 of 70 ‘A-frame’ located on the public highway will be removed. Car park: construction of the car park should be to current permeable standards to maximise sustainability; I question whether the proposed construction achieves this requirement (Design & Access Statement page 7). Therefore, subject to Conditions to control the above provisions I raise no adverse highways objections to this application.
Transport Strategy: No objection.
‘I have reviewed the revised Travel Plan and am satisfied that the detail is sufficient to satisfy guidance contained within PPG13 and that contained within the Hampshire Country Council guide to development related Travel Plans’.
Initial comments
'I note that the applicants have submitted some information illustrating that due to the nature of the business the most appropriate location is away from local housing and therefore remote from public transport provision. In considering this information I refer to statements contained within the Adopted Local Plan which give guidance for determining to what degree a location can be described as being sustainable. The Design & Access Statement contains references to how they encourage users (and staff) of the facility to travel via modes other than the private car; these details should be incorporated into a formal Travel Plan.
When evaluating the site I would consider the overall assessment as being unsustainable when measured in terms of accessibility by a choice of alternative means of transport other than the motor car. It is felt that due to its location the site has very limited accessibility by a choice of transport means which is why it is considered to be categorised as such. However the relevance of this assessment in respect of the application needs to be taken into account. Bearing in mind the purpose of the proposal I would see this as being acceptable, even though it is envisaged that the main form of transport for either the workforce or visitors to the site would most likely be the motor car. There is unlikely to be any increase in traffic generation in the area (other than Bagmore Lane) as stated in the Design & Access statement. As the existing site is located very close to the proposed, and any vehicle movements generated by this proposal will already be using the surrounding highway network. However no figures have been produced to substantiate current levels or those regarding the car sharing.
In general, walking is not a feasible or attractive alternative but cycling could be, especially for the work force that travels from the immediate locality. From certain destinations on the outskirts of Lasham and Herriard it is within an acceptable distance; but may not be over roads that would be qualified as attractive.
Buses services offer little opportunities for mode transfer and due to the irregular service provided this would not present a realistic option for workers or visitors alike'.
Hampshire Highways Authority: No comment.
'Under the terms of the Highways Development Control Agency Agreement the highways advice should be provided by the engineers at your authority'.
7 of 70 Forward Planning Team: No objection.
The site (within an area of woodland) lies outside of any Settlement Policy Boundary as defined in the Adopted Local Plan 1996-2011 (ALP) and is therefore covered by countryside protection policies. The relevant policy in the ALP with regard to the principle of the proposed development is Policy C9 (New Leisure Facilities and Open Spaces). In summary, Policy C9 states that proposals for new leisure facilities or open spaces will be permitted provided that they meet current Borough Council standards, the proposed location is “acceptable”, the design and construction is of high quality and any foreseeable impacts on neighbouring land uses, amenity or wildlife are acceptable.
As to whether the location for the proposed use is acceptable in principle in planning policy terms, guidance contained in PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) and PPG17 (Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation) is relevant. Paragraph 26 of PPS7 states that planning authorities should maximise a range of beneficial uses of the countryside around urban areas and this should include “improvement of public access (e.g. through support for country parks and community forests) and facilitating the provision of appropriate sport and recreation facilities.” Similarly, paragraph 25 of PPG17 notes that the countryside around towns provides a valuable resource for the provision of sport and recreation and states that “local authorities should encourage the creation of sports and recreational facilities in such areas.” It also states that “where planning permission is to be granted for such land uses, local planning authorities should ensure that facilities are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport as alternatives to the use of the car.”
With regard to the accessibility of the site, it is noted that an Implementation Team assessment of the location (referred to in their 27th January 2010 consultation response to this planning application) concludes that the site is unsustainable when measured in terms of accessibility by a choice of alternative means of transport other than the motor car. However, the Implementation Team response goes on to say that even though the main form of transport to the site for the workforce and visitors is likely to be the motor car, given the nature of the proposal, the location is acceptable.
The assessment that the proposed location for this use is unsustainable in terms of accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport is accepted. However, similar to the conclusions of the Implementation Team, it is considered that the proposed location for this use is acceptable in principle under ALP Policy C9. This is based on the nature of the proposed use and the characteristics of a site that would be suitable, as well as the objective of minimising adverse impact on neighbouring land uses.
Landscape: No objection (subject to Woodland Management Plan condition).
Proposals have overcome previous concerns.
Comments 21/04/10
The bridleway is now shown correctly, and all surfaced routes are now shown and annotated.
The proposed site plan now indicates two sections of post and rail fencing with some warning signs. These appear to have been placed in the most visually open section of the area where the bridleway abuts the woodland. It also seems as though there is an open section where an existing ride accesses the woodland in the centre. It is possible to gain access to the woodland from the bridleway from points along its full length. I do not 8 of 70 therefore think that the proposals go far enough to successfully protect the public from the risks associated with inadvertently entering a private paintball operation. It is therefore recommended that due to the operation, that the applicant should be require to erect a fence along the full length of the open bridleway. The proposed fence is acceptable, signage should be positioned at all locations where public are potentially accessing the site. Any gaps which are to remain open for access should have a gate on them, to remain closed when not in use to avoid any confusion.
Initial comments 12/02/10
The application site is situated to the south of Herriard, west of the village of Bagmore. It comprises a block of woodland which is accessed from Bagmore Lane which cuts through the northern edge of the woodland. A public right of way runs through the southern part of the woodland, along the inner of two tracks which exist.
The site is within the Ellisfield Clay Plateau and Valleys landscape character area (Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Character Assessment June 2001).
The site is representative of this character area, situated on undulating land in a quiet rural location. Being a woodland block is also indicative of the character area, and also means there is a high degree of enclosure and limited intervisibility.
The proposal submitted is to relocate an existing outdoor pursuits and paintballing centre within the woodland. This will involve alterations to an existing track to improve access, temporary buildings and a car park, as well as defined games areas and also pieces of machinery, vehicles and other articles to add interest to the games being played.
In principle, the proposed change of use would not have adverse impacts on landscape character or the visual amenity of the site. The site would remain a block of woodland and the proposed track alterations appear to be subtle and sympathetic to the rural context of the area. Should the proposed buildings and games areas be situated in locations which are not visible from the bridleway to the south, this would also mean that there would be no adverse visual impact to views from this public right of way.
The following aspects of the application need addressing:
Bridleway and adjacent users: I am satisfied from the proposals and a site visit that the games are located in positions which will not be seen from the bridleway, and this means that there will not be an adverse visual impact from public vantage points to the south of the site. However it is evident that there is currently no definition between the public right of way and the woodland beyond. It is also evident from tracks on the ground that many of the rides as well as the bridleway are currently used for horse riding. As the proposed paint balling areas are not immediately visible from the bridleway this raises issues of health and safety for public users of the bridleway, and in the absence of any measures to physically prevent access to the woodland, the interior parts of this too. In order to reduce the risk of a member of the public inadvertently entering the outdoor pursuits area, it is advised that the applicants are required to address the open length of bridleway in order to reduce danger. Post and rail fencing to would clearly define the boundary between publicly accessible and private land in a manner which would not harm the visual amenity or landscape character of this side of the woodland, with appropriate native hedgerow planting on the woodland side. It might be necessary to attach small signs to the fence in order to notify the public of the potentially dangerous activities going on within the site.
9 of 70 Materials: The drawings showing the reception area, car park and compound are annotated to show the compound paved with gravel and/or hoggin, with the paths and circulation areas being surfaced with woodchip or bark. The materials proposed would be appropriate for the woodland context, and would be sympathetic to its character and visual amenity. However, the drawings do not extend to show the network of paths which will connect the parking area and compound to the surrounding games areas. We will need to see a drawing which shows details of the entire network of footpaths, with their dimensions, in order to be able to assess the full impact of the proposals.
Detailed drawings will be necessary to show the proposed construction of the hoggin, gravel and bark/woodchip surfaced areas in order to show the degree of excavation required, as well as how the surfacing is proposed to be contained, in order to assess the impact on the woodland.
Landscape Management Plan: The Ecological report submitted with the application discusses the value of a management plan in order to enhance the wider areas of the woodland not being used for the outdoor pursuits. The creation and submission of a landscape management plan would be valuable in ensuring that the ecological value of the woodland is maximised, but also that this locally important woodland block, which contributes to the character and visual amenity of this part of the borough, is managed well and retained in to the future. The management plan should include measures to ensure continued and successive growth, including new under storey planting in a phased programme. It should also make provision for review and potential revision every 5 years.
Trees: No objection subject to conditions.
Concerned that the veteran beech tree is within firing range of game area 2. No objection subject to enrichment planting being proposed between the gaming area and the tree as part of a woodland management plan condition.
Initial comments
This is mixed species plantation woodland with an area of approximately 38ha situated to the east of the A399, 5 miles south of Basingstoke. The site is a designated site of importance for nature conservation, in part for its historic management as a wooded common. Access to the woodland is from the Bagmore Lane at the northern corner. A graded track provides access within the woodland linking with a network of rides. A bridleway runs east-west along the southern boundary.
The woodland has compartmentalised areas of coniferous (mostly larch and Douglas fir) and broadleaved trees (Oak, beech, sycamore and birch). Across the woodland the age class varies from the young oak areas to mature Douglas fir. There are a number of over mature beech trees including one noteworthy ancient beech tree to the east, a remnant of the common.
The access will require the removal of a poor quality Scots pine. There is a moderate risk that the access will lead to a decline of a beech and oak tree, however, in the context of the woodland, the trees are not particularly noteworthy and the risk acceptable. The passing places will require the removal of a number of trackside trees of low value trees.
The car park and reception area will require clear felling approximately 100m² of low value birch and sycamore woodland and 30m² of coniferous woodland. This will have negligible impact on the overall integrity of the woodland. The areas are internal and the clearance will not be visible from any publicly accessible vantage points. 10 of 70
Within the woodland, there are 9 separate areas to be used for the games, each measuring approximately 0.5ha. These have all been located within the coniferous compartments; with the exception of game area 1 sited in an area of beech and mixed coniferous woodland. Soil compaction and stem damage will have a significant impact on the trees within the game areas. The trees will gradually decline and, overtime, the areas will become less densely stocked as trees die and are removed. It is proposed to rotate use of the areas in order that 1 area can be ‘rested’ for a year, and others for 1 month each year. This is not sufficient to allow for the woodland to naturally regenerate to its present state and any positive effects will soon be lost once the game area is active again. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that the areas have been located in areas of lower ecological value, and the ecological report has not identified any veteran trees of cultural/historic interest within the areas.
A number of trees were noted to be in poor structural condition. The change of use of the woodland to include recreational activities may require a modification of any existing risk assessment for woodland usage.
Woodland management plan: I understand that it is proposed to undertake a management plan with a view to improving the ecological value of the woodland. I agree with my colleague Catherine Pearce that this should include provision to review the effectiveness of management decisions every 5 years. The plan should also include management recommendations to increase the longevity of the ancient beech tree.
Biodiversity: No objection subject to conditions.
The location of the proposed pathways between gaming areas is acceptable.
Initial comments
The impact of the proposed development on the biodiversity is not considered to be significant in view of the extensive presence of coniferous plantation within which the paint ball activities will be located. However, areas of more ecological interest exist within the woodland as a whole but I am satisfied that the conditions given below can mitigate any adverse impacts on these areas and the species present. In addition, the potential to secure habitat enhancement measures will support the biodiversity interest of the site.
It should be noted the ecological survey (October 2009) was not carried out at an optimum time of year and therefore the full assessment of the woodland’s current ground flora cannot be determined. In the report, the restrictions of surveying at such a time should have been raised as it has an influence on the quality of the data. However, looking at the previous site survey of the woodland, which was carried out at a more appropriate time of year, I can agree with the broad conclusions raised - the areas of coniferous plantation within the site are of lower ecological value than the areas of semi-natural and broad leaved plantation.
The proposed development site lies with Herriard Common which is a designated Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) for its past status as a wooded common and the presence of Small teasel, a notable plant species within Hampshire. Pasture woodlands/wooded commons are often characterised by the presence of open-grown veteran trees which are a reflection of their previous past status/use. Only one veteran tree is recorded in JFA Ltd’s ecological assessment which suggests the majority of the site was cleared and replanted. Small teasel was last recorded on the site in 1986 and therefore a re-survey for this species at an appropriate time of year is over-due. This 11 of 70 re-survey forms one of my recommendations given below. A number of other ecological issues were raised in relation to habitats and notable/protected species recorded within the proposed development site and the likely impacts on these are described below:
The ‘game’ areas: As recommended in JFA Ltd’s Ecological Assessment, the majority of the game areas (areas 2 to 9) are located within the areas of coniferous plantation, which are described as having a ‘less well developed’ and ‘sparse ground’ flora. Given the time of year of the survey this assessment may be an underestimate of the species richness of these areas but it is accepted that areas of coniferous plantation are likely to have a reduced ground flora diversity. In addition the previous survey of the woodland concluded ‘the ground flora beneath the coniferous areas is very poor’; however, a botanical survey of the woodland in the spring/early summer will be necessary to provide baseline data so that the impacts of the proposed development within this area can be monitored. The results of the monitoring can then be used to re-evaluate and adjust the management of the woodland as needs be. I have recommended below a condition to ensure this survey and future monitoring is carried out.
JFA Ltd’s Ecological Assessment recommends that the areas of broad leaved plantation should be excluded from the proposed development area; however, it appears Game Area 1 is located within an area mapped as broad leaved plantation in the consultant’s report. From looking at the aerial photos of the site it would appear this area (on the eastern half of compartment 25d on drawing R.10.01/P1) comprises of mixed woodland (coniferous and broadleaved). The consultant’s report describes these areas as having ‘relatively low ground layer diversity’ although they ‘should be considered to be of some value as a woodland habitat’. Therefore any impact on biodiversity within this area would need to be mitigated against via the recommended condition of habitat enhancement given below.
A veteran beech tree is located in the western half of the compartment 25d which will need to remain excluded from any gaming areas. In addition the tree officer has identified a couple of over- mature beech trees to the north of game area 1 which he thought may require removing because they may pose a health and safety risk. Mature trees have the potential to support roosting bats and breeding birds. Details of the timing/ecological watching brief/felling procedures required to address the protection of bats and breeding birds will be required. A necessary condition to ensure this along with habitat improvements for bats/birds that may use the site is given below.
Of the other game areas, Game Area 6 lies immediately adjacent to an area of broad leaved plantation and therefore, as above, is considered to be of some value as a woodland habitat. As a result trespassing into this area and any other areas identified as having significant ecological value should be restricted. A full wildlife protection /management plan should include measures to confine access within the designated gaming areas and pathways only.
Car Park and Reception Area: The construction of the car park area and reception has not been assessed within the consultants’ report even though it will obviously result in the loss of ground flora within these areas in addition to the loss of some trees. The consultant’s report recommends that the areas of densest conifer growth (within compartment 22a) should be used as a location for the base camp and I am pleased this recommendation has been followed. The car park is located within an area mapped as coniferous plantation in JFA Ltd’s ecological report and described by the Tree Officer as a mixture of self seeded silver birch/sycamore and young Douglas Fir. It is presumed the Tree Officer will make any necessary recommendations if any of the remaining trees within the car park/reception area are likely to be adversely affected by these proposed constructions.
12 of 70 It is unclear if any trees will need to be removed to create the necessary passing places along the existing hard surfaced track but widening this track in some places may have some ecological benefits by increasing light levels into the adjacent woodland. It is noted that access into the woodland from the highway will require the removal of a Scots pine tree that is described as ‘heavily overgrown by ivy’ in the Design and Access statement. This suggests the tree may have the potential to support roosting bats and, as above, a condition is given below to address the protection of bats and breeding birds. Access pathways between Game Areas
It is proposed to create 2m wide woodchip and bark paths to link the reception area and game areas; however a clear map showing the exact locations of all of these pathways has not be submitted but will be required. On drawing R.10.01/P3 it is apparent some of these path ways are located along the semi-improved grassland tracks identified in JFA Ltd’s ecological report. These grassland tracks were described as being significant for their botanical interest and they are likely to be used by invertebrates. Most of the grass tracks within the woodland appear to have a total width of around 10m so although there will be a loss of some habitat to the footprint of the paths the majority of the grassland habitat will remain. In addition the designated paths and stewarding of players between game zones should limit further/additional degradation of the grassland habitat due to trampling. Any further impacts on species using the paths can be minimised by locating the paths on the side of the tracks that get least sunlight; a condition to mitigate these impacts is given below.
Within JFA Ltd’s Ecological Report the following notable/protected species have been identified as being potentially affected by the proposed development:
Small teasel: The ecological report states this species was not rediscovered during the 2009 survey but, given the time of year the survey was carried out (October), this is not surprising. There appears to be inference that the grid reference supplied by the local record centre (HBIC) for the record of this species, locates it close to one of the rides. It is unlikely this grid reference refers to a precise location of the species and is more likely to be central point within the site. As mentioned above, a re-survey for this species at an appropriate time of year would be necessary to map its exact location so that a base line information on any impacts on the species can be used for future monitoring. However, it is acknowledged that this species is less likely to occur within the game areas in the coniferous plantation because it favours woodland rides. In addition, the construction of the access pathways along some of the woodland rides may not necessarily have an adverse impact on the species since small teasel requires periodic ground disturbance to germinate.
White admiral and Silver-washed Fritillary Butterflies: White admiral butterflies are a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority Species and Silver-washed fritillary butterflies are a Hampshire BAP species. Both these species have been recorded within the woodland. The food plant for the caterpillars of the White admiral is honeysuckle and this was not common within the coniferous areas or the woodland rides where the gaming areas and access routes will be located.
The caterpillars of Silver-washed Fritillary butterflies feed on violets but these tend to grow in shady/semi-shady positions on the woodland floor which are likely to be concentrated in the areas of semi-natural woodland rather than the coniferous plantation or woodland rides. However, as these butterflies are both species of conservation importance and are likely to use the woodland rides within the proposed development site, enhancement measures to benefit the butterflies will be required to mitigate any potential impacts.
13 of 70 Schedule 1 Birds: JFA Ltd’s Ecological Assessment concludes that birds included under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act are unlikely to breed within the site. The report makes no mention of the species that have been considered or how this conclusion was drawn, however, a search of HBIC’s bird data has highlighted that the following Schedule 1 birds have been recorded within the local area: Barn Owls, Woodlark and Red Kites.
Barn Owls can nest in old tree hollows but the majority of occupied barn owl roosting/nesting sites tend to be found in agricultural buildings. Only one veteran beech was identified in the ecological survey report and this tree has been excluded from the paintball area. The records of woodlark and red kite are located over 1 km from the proposed development site and the habitats present within the development site do not indicate that either species is likely to breed within the woodland. Woodlarks prefer areas of open, clear felled woodland on heathland and red kites prefer to nest in large trees with open access.
Finally, as mentioned before, I would be interested to find out if the planning permission for this development could be granted for a set period of time only (for instance 10 years) so that a review of the impacts on biodiversity can be re-assessed in the future and the mitigation proposals can be modified as needs be before planning permission is granted again.
Right of Way Officer (HCC): Objection.
Nothing within the paperwork that has been submitted has addressed our concerns raised previously.
Initial comments 10/02/10
'Page 2 of the Design and Access Statement suggests that the "game" areas " will not be visible ………... from the public footpath that runs along the southern boundary. " The proposed site plan, Drwg No R.10.01 / P2B, also refers to a Public Footpath along the extreme southern boundary of the woodland, some 30m south of the actual site boundary, which is delineated by a track. This track is in fact Herriard Bridleway No 9. The path to the south, along the woodland boundary, which also happens to be the parish and district boundary, has no recorded public rights over it.
We have several concerns, not least of which is the fact that the presence of the bridleway has not been recognised.
On page 6 of the D & A Statement the applicant refers to the pre-application advice received under reference ENQ/27519 and claims to have taken that advice into account. Our response to that enquiry advised of the presence of the bridleway and raised concerns about the potential for accidents involving alarmed horses.
The fact that a bridleway running through the site had not been recognised suggests that The British Horse Society may not have been consulted. As a bridleway is affected, then the BHS should indeed be consulted, particularly as there will be potentially loud and sudden noises in the vicinity.
Secondly, this bridleway is actually some 30m closer to the action than the "footpath". This therefore has some implication as far as noise levels are concerned. There appears to be no mention of the range of the guns, although we note that the game areas would be spaced 15m apart, implying that the range is therefore less than this. We would need 14 of 70 confirmation of this.
We note that the proposal is for the site to be used 80 - 90 weekend days during the season which would run from March to November. This equates to every Saturday and Sunday, something which we find unacceptable so close to a public path.
We also note that the compartments within the common are to be thinned on a selective basis, over a 3 - 5 year cycle for conifers and a 5 - 7 year cycle for broadleaves. The felling of trees in the southern section of the site will reduce / destroy the buffer between the games area and the bridleway. This will therefore have an effect on the noise levels, which may, or may not be acceptable to horse-riders.
For all of the above reasons we must object to the proposal unless and until the British Horse Society has been consulted and has no objection itself'.
Environmental Health: No objection.
'As discussed, in deciding whether or not there were any EH issues associated with the above application I considered the noise generation associated with the activity along with potential for the activity to cause any regular disturbance to nearby noise sensitive premises.
Based on the sound levels provided in the applicants supporting information I have verified the information by using basic acoustic propagation calculations to determine noise levels at the nearest dwelling (approx 700m away) which demonstrate that noise will be fairly low level. The shotgun levels quoted are measured in terms of a 'C' weighting which is used to measure impulsive type noise, however it should be noted that when determining environmental noise levels these are most often described in terms of an 'A' weighted value. A-weighting is a decibel correction applied to a sound to represent how the human response varies with frequency.
The 'C' weighted level will therefore always be greater than levels actually experienced by residents due to it including a wider frequency range.
The predicted levels do not take into account all weather conditions and noise from the activity may be audible at times under certain weather conditions ie downwind, however based on the information provided I am satisfied that the activity will not cause a regular significant disturbance at the nearest dwelling'.
Environment Agency: No Objection.
The Environment Agency has no objections to the proposed development as submitted on flood risk grounds. We are therefore able to remove our objection to the proposed development as submitted.
Natural England: Comment.
'This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The Council should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 14 of PPS9. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so 15 of 70 far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’'.
British Horse Society: Objection.
‘The proposed paintball site is adjacent to a bridleway, which is well-used by horse-riders, cyclists and walkers for fresh air and healthy exercise. They enjoy it for its beauty and tranquillity, and the local flora and fauna. Horses are prey animals, and are particularly sensitive to sudden noises or movements, which they perceive as a threat. Their senses of hearing and sight are much more acute than those of humans, and they may react to sounds which to the human ear are barely audible. Their response is likely to be to try and take flight from the unexpected sound, which at best will spoil the rider’s enjoyment, and at worse could lead to injury either to the rider or another path user. Wild animals in the area will respond in a similar manner, and this disturbance will have a detrimental effect, especially in the breeding season. I am surprised no environmental impact statement is required for this application, as in my view it will be disruptive to both wild and domestic animals for some distance outside the area of the application. The modifications put forward do nothing to reduce this.
The suggested Travel Plan will not reduce the volume of traffic using the approach roads, which vulnerable users also have to use. As I am sure you must be aware, accident rates on rural roads are already higher than on other highways and the drivers approaching this site are likely to be from a relatively high risk group. The British Horse Society does not consider paintballing to be a suitable activity for this site because of the negative effects it will have on other leisure users, and local residents, and wishes to object to it’.
Initial comments
‘Proposed site is too close to bridleway across Herriard Common, and paint-balling will have an adverse effect on the quiet enjoyment of this PROW by users.
The site will also cause a substantial increase in the number of vehicles using the narrow lanes in the vicinity, which will create a hazard for non-motorised users’.
North Hampshire Group of the Ramblers Association: Objection.
'The Ramblers Association has as its key charitable objectives the promotion of walking, protection of Rights of Way, campaigning for increased access opportunities, and the protection of the countryside. This planning application is of interest to us as it potentially affects Herriard bridleway 9.
There is a discrepancy between the line of bridleway 9 shown on the Hampshire County Council Definitive Map of Rights of Way and the route of the footpath as shown on the proposed site plan, drawing no. R10.01/P2B. The location plan, drawing R1.01/P6, in contrast, follows the same line as shown on the Definitive Map.
The Definitive Map shows that bridleway 9 passes along the track forming the southern boundary of the site, marked in red on the applicants’ drawing R10.01/P2B and labelled ‘Track’. However, drawing R10.01/P2B marks the bridleway running outside the site, immediately to the south of the area of woodland and following the Co Const, CP &ED boundary.
16 of 70 Assuming that the Definitive Plan shows the correct route of Bridleway 9, the Right of Way is closer to the nearest game area by some 15 – 20m than is shown on drawing R10.01/P2B. It may be that due to the overall distance between the nearest game area and the Right of Way this is not an issue. However, we would wish to ensure that there is no danger of any stray ‘shots’ reaching the bridleway and that noise disturbance from game play will be contained as much as possible within the site and will not unduly adversely affect the peaceful enjoyment of persons using the Right of Way'.
Hampshire Cycling: Objection.
The CTC objects to the application at Herriard Common on the following grounds:-
The proposed centre with its car park for 70 cars and bays for deliveries will generate much more traffic making it difficult for cyclists. In a rural location, this is not appropriate Bagmore lane is a quiet rural lane which is popular with cyclists for both commuting and leisure as it forms a key link in routes connecting Basingstoke and Alton, Basingstoke and Lasham Gardening Centre, Odiham and Alresford. With a car park for at least 70 cars this will mean a considerable increase in traffic and will make this attractive route less easy to use. The A339 is not attractive to cyclists because of its heavy, fast traffic flows and the local highways authority has refused to make any provision for cyclists on it. As a result Bagmore lane and adjacent roads form part of the alternative A339 route for cyclists, this alternative is direct, convenient, cohesive and comfortable, and of no greater distance viz – Basingstoke, Cliddesden, Green Lane Ellisfield, Church lane, Bell Lane, Bagmore lane, Herriard crossroads, Nashes Green, Back lane, the Avenue, Shaldon/Golden Pot , Alton. Some cyclists take a 2 mile longer route and leave out Church lane and Bell lane and descend the broader Green Lane all the way to Bagmore lane crossroads. It is therefore essential to safeguard the quietness and safety of this route Transport by bicycle will be made more difficult and dangerous and unattractive which could also lead to a reduction in levels of cycling and therefore increased motor traffic. The bridleway will be less attractive to cyclists, with not only the noise, but also the intimidation and fear of injury. It will make access to the countryside more difficult Contribution of cycling to tourism and the local economy
Cyclists regularly pass through Herriard on their way to the popular restaurant at Lasham garden centre. They also frequent local hostelries for food, where they often spend more that motorists as they have very healthy appetites whilst there is still room in the saddlebags to buy those souvenirs etc along the way. The countryside action plans (CRoW Act) for Hampshire recognise the problems of increased levels of motorised traffic to the countryside. Easy attractive access from Basingstoke by bicycle (rather than encouraging portage of bikes on cars) is essential. The Bagmore lane route to the countryside is very important in this respect.
Cycling and commuting/utility trips.
It is also not unknown for cyclists to commute to work between Basingstoke and Alton or over shorter distances taking them through Ellisfield. This is particularly important as the bus services are limited. Cango bus is subsidised by the county and could be withdrawn. Cycling can be more convenient than the bus as it is more flexible
17 of 70 Conclusion Unsustainable and in an unsuitable location Increased traffic and attendant problems
In particular we highlight how the increased traffic on unsuitable roads will affect cycle tourism and utility travel in this popular cycling area.
East Hampshire District Council: No objection.
Southern Water: No objection subject to condition.
'The environment Agency should be consulted and the applicant is advised to consult the Environment Agency directly regarding the use of a private wastewater treatment works or septic tank drainage which disposes of effluent to sub soil irrigation. The owner of the premises will need to empty and maintain the works or septic tank to ensure its long term effectiveness.
The Council's Building Control Officers or technical staff should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.
We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following condition is attached the consent (regarding surface water disposal)'.
Public Observations
2 Petitions of objection received incorporating, 133 Signatures from Ellisfield and 58 Signatures from Bagmore Lane, who raise the following concerns:
The safety of local car drivers, motorcyclists, walkers, cyclists and horse riders will diminish due to increased traffic. The network already over stretched. There is no speed limit along Bagmore Lane. The noise of extra traffic will cause harm. The proposal will attract trespassers and cause vandalism. Permanent felling of trees and flora within ancient woodland is unacceptable. The development will cause disruption and permanent destruction of wildlife. There are environmental concerns as a result of the development.
93 letters of objection have been received raising the following points of concern:
Highways The Travel Plan is useless. Train and Buses would not be adequate means of transport. There are no buses on Sundays. The Travel plan suggests that there is inadequate parking provision on the site. People are unlikely to use public transport. The development will increase speeds and the danger of surrounding roads. Sat Navigation Systems will direct people through the surrounding villages. Visitors are not aware of how dangerous roads are. Visibility splays are not accurate. Too much traffic for a woodland area. Inadequate infrastructure. The lanes cannot accommodate more traffic. 18 of 70 People struggle to exit driveways already. The development will result in mud on the road The lane is used by cyclists, walks, dog walkers, joggers and horse riders. The development will result in increased wear and tear on roads and extra work for the Council. There is a campaign to restrict Bagmore Lane to 30 mph.
Impact on Users of the Bridleway There will be an impact on horses using the bridleway. The bridleway would become unusable as a result of the development. The bridleway is not a Public Right of Way.
Biodiversity and Trees Harm to habitats, wildlife, flora and fauna. Many trees at the Lasham site died as a result of the proposed use. Badgers have been seen in areas around the site. Rare orchards have been seen growing in the woodland The development will destroy the SINC. The site is an Ancient Natural Managed Woodland. Red kites, owls and Buzzards have been seen to nest in the area.
Visual Amenity The proposed fence and signs will destroy the rural countryside and are urban features. Entrance signage is out of character to the rural setting. The proposed temporary buildings are ugly. The site is within an Area of Outstanding Scenic Quality and on the edge of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The development will ruin peace and tranquillity. The site is located in a Conservation Area. How does the proposal contribute to the experience of the rural countryside? Other Matters The area should not be commercialised. The facility opening 7 days a week is unacceptable. There will be an increase in pollution- Litter and Noise. Not all of the relevant neighbours have been notified. Work has been already undertaken at the site. The development will harm surrounding businesses. An claim for a new pathway through the site refused by HCC. The Appeal decision BDB/63357 conflicts with the proposal. The development will encourage vandalism. There are already paintball sites in the surrounding area. The paintball activity started unlawfully on the Herriard estate when permission was refused. So many people in the woodland will create a heath issue. There are Health and Safety issues as a result of the development. There are questions as to why the permit at the Lasham Site has not been renewed. Has the health and Safety Executive been consulted about risk?
19 of 70 4 Letters of Support have been received stating the following points:
The development is less imposing visually and environmentally than another Golf Course. Many villagers in Lasham are not aware that the Paintball site there has ceased. The development gives young people an opportunity to let off steam and their needs should be listened to. The previous site operated for 25 years before closing and various interest groups coexisted very well. The development provides good job opportunities for young people. The traffic has not reduced in the village since the paintball site as Lasham has closed. No accidents or incidents occurred in connection with the previous site.
Planning Policy and Material Considerations
The application site lies outside any recognised Settlement Policy Boundary and is therefore covered by countryside policies. The principle of development is acceptable providing that the proposal would meet the relevant Government Guidance and the design, amenity, highway, biodiversity, countryside, tree and leisure policies contained within the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the relevant Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance.
Government Guidance
Planning Policy Statement 9: ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’ (PPS9) states that planning, construction, development and regeneration should have a minimal impact on biodiversity and where possible enhance it.
Planning Policy Statement 7: 'Sustainable Development in Rural Areas' states that 'Planning policies should provide a positive framework for facilitating sustainable development that supports traditional land-based activities and makes the most of new leisure and recreational opportunities that require a countryside location. Planning authorities should continue to ensure that the quality and character of the wider countryside is protected and, where possible, enhanced. They should have particular regard to any areas that have been statutorily designated for their landscape, wildlife or historic qualities where greater priority should be given to restraint of potentially damaging development'.
Planning Policy Statement 25 'Development and Flood Risk' is of relevance and seeks to avoid inappropriate development in flood risk areas and to locate development away from flood risk wherever possible. All forms of flooding and their impact on the natural and built environment are material planning considerations and PPS25 requires flood risk to be taken into account at all stages of the planning process to avoid inappropriate development.
Planning Policy Guidance 13: ‘Transport’ (PPG13) seeks to promote more sustainable transport choices, promote accessibility by public transport and reduce the need to travel, especially by car.
Planning Policy Guidance 17: ‘Planning for open space and recreation’ (PPG17) aims to support urban renaissance, support rural renewal, promote social and community cohesion, promote health and well being and promote more sustainable development. Paragraph 25 of PPG17 states that the countryside around towns provides a valuable resource for the provision of sport and recreation and states that “Local Authorities should 20 of 70 encourage the creation of sports and recreational facilities in such areas”.
Local Plan
Policy E1 (Development Control) states that proposals for new development will be permitted provided that they are of a high standard of design, make efficient use of the land, respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and do not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. Specifically, criteria (ii) states that a comprehensive landscaping scheme should be provided, where appropriate, enabling development to successfully integrate with the landscape and surrounds, and not result in the loss of or have a potentially adverse impact on protected trees; Criteria (iii) states proposals should not generate traffic of a type or amount inappropriate for roads, properties or settlements in the locality, and provide safe and convenient access for all potential users, integrating into existing movement networks and open spaces; Criteria (vii) states proposals should minimise the potential for pollution of air and soil and not create noise or light which harms living and working conditions or the public's enjoyment of the built and natural environment.
Policy E6 states that planning permission will only be granted where it is demonstrated that the proposals will be sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of the area concerned. In particular proposals should look to respect and improve upon the particular qualities of the relevant Landscape Character Area
i. The visual amenity and scenic quality of the area ii. The setting of a settlement, including important views to, across and out of settlements iii. Trees, hedgerows and other landscape elements and features
Policy E7 states that development will be permitted where it will not have an adverse effect on protected species or the conservation status of the protected species. Furthermore, proposals will be expected to conserve and, where possible, enhance biodiversity of the receiving environment, taking into account the aims and targets of the UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plans.
Policy C9 states that proposals for new leisure facilities or open spaces will be permitted provided that they are in accordance with the current standards adopted by the Borough Council, and:
Their proposed location is acceptable and their proposed design and construction will be of a high quality and conform to accepted standards of good practice; and
Any foreseeable adverse impacts on neighbouring land uses, amenity or wildlife can be ameliorated or managed in such a way as to make them acceptable.
Policy A1 (Car Parking) of the Local Plan states that development proposals will be flexibly assessed, dependent on individual circumstances, using as a basis the car and other parking standards set out within the Council's Parking Strategy and Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents.
Para 5.5 states: In order to promote the concept of sustainability, some form of management is necessary to ensure that excessive parking is not provided.
Policy A2 (Cycle) of the Local Plan identifies the role that walking, cycling and the use of public transport can play in ensuring more sustainable travel. 21 of 70
Supplementary Planning Documents/ Guidance
The Landscape and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document states that adequate information on landscape and biodiversity must be provided to inform planning stages. Significant landscape and biodiversity impacts must be avoided, wherever possible, through careful design. Mitigation measures must only be used where avoidance through design is not achievable.
Appendix 14 of the Council’s Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document ‘Countryside Design Summary’ analyses and defines six Countryside Design Areas which enables identification of design implications for each of the areas. These principles can then be used to guide the form and appearance of new development in the countryside.
The Council’s non-residential parking standards Supplementary Planning Document is also of relevance.
Principle of use
Skirmish Paintballing Centre was previously located within Lasham, just outside the southern boundary of Basingstoke and Deane. The Lasham paintball site closed earlier this year as a result of the lease on the land not being renewed. The applicant is therefore seeking to re-open the business at the application site. The main road to the site previously in Lasham would have been the A339 which would also be the primary route to the new proposed site at Herriard Common.
The principle of a Paintballing Activity Centre within the proposed location needs to be assessed against PPG17 and Policy C9 of the Local Plan.
Paintballing by virtue of its nature requires a large area of woodland and therefore is naturally forced to locate within countryside locations. The activity is therefore recognised to be more commonly associated with rural locations than urban locations.
PPG 17 states that ‘where planning permission is to be granted for such land uses, local planning authorities should ensure that facilities are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport as alternatives to the use of the car'. Policy C9 of the Local Plan also states that the location should be acceptable.
In this instance, the application site is recognised to be in an unsustainable location when measured in terms of the choice of alternative means of transport other than the car. However, the location of paintballing sites mean that the main mode of transport is likely to be the motorcar irrespective of whether alternative modes of more sustainable transport are available. As such, given that the nature of the activity is such that it forced to take place in the countryside, that public transport is less available in the countryside and that due to the nature of the activity people will predominantly travel by car it is considered that whilst the site is unsustainable, the proposed location is acceptable for the use and in accordance with Policy C9 (i) and PPG17. The applicant has submitted a Travel Plan to support the application and this is considered further in the report under Highways/Parking.
The design of the proposal, impact on neighbouring properties and wildlife are also considerations of Policy C9 and are addressed below.
22 of 70 Impact on the Character of the Area
Herriard Common is a woodland block and therefore has a high degree of enclosure with limited intervisibility from a distance from the surrounding area.
The proposed paintball activity requires a number of gaming areas which need to be sectioned off and accessed. In order to facilitate the use a number of ancillary buildings are required. The applicant proposes using a number of shipping containers that would be laid out around a courtyard arrangement and would provide seating areas, kitchen, toilets, kit areas etc. These would be sited deep within the woodland and whilst it would involve the removal of a number of trees (discussed below) the surrounding trees would mitigate the visual impact of these containers within the surrounding area. The structures would be painted in camouflage colours which would help them to blend into the surrounding woodland and adds to the overall experience which paint balling seeks to create.
The reception area is recognised to be relatively large, however, the provision of this area and the provision of buildings is recognised to be fundamental to the overall proposal. In addition, the design of the containers is acceptable, they would have no wider visual impact and could be easily removable once the used has ceased.
The proposal also includes a 70 space car park. The requirement for a car park this size is considered below, however, visually the car park, even on occasions when it would be full, would be likely to be screened by existing trees and would have no wider impact on the surrounding area. The surfacing proposed for the car park is gravel and/or hoggin and the connecting pathways would be woodchip or bark which are considered to be appropriate for a woodland setting.
The proposal also includes alterations to the existing vehicular access to the site. The access would be enlarged and a Scotts Pine tree is proposed to be removed to improve visibility (discussed further under Highways and Trees). It is considered that these alterations would not detrimentally affect the visual appearance of the site from the Bagmore Lane or harm the character of the area.
The proposal also includes the provision of low level lighting in the form of bollard lights by the car parking area and down lighting from the roof of the reception areas. The principle of this form of lighting is considered to be acceptable and would not create unacceptable light pollution. Details of the lights and their level of illumination would be controlled by condition and a condition is recommended to restrict any additional lighting to be installed.
The paintball use is proposed alongside continuing plantation management of the woodland. Given the location of the development and games areas within the woodland and the block of woodland surrounding them it is considered that the removal of plantation trees as part of on-going forestry operation would not result in the proposal having a visual impact within the surrounding area or from the bridleway along the south of the site, particularly given the effective management of the woodland under the Woodland Management Plan condition.
It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not have a harmful impact on the visual amenity or landscape character of the area. A Woodland Management Plan for a 5 year period will be conditioned to ensure that the woodland is managed appropriately and effectively to ensure that it continues to contribute to the visual amenity of the Borough and is maintained for the future. The Management Plan will include details of how the forestry operations are managed and ensure that a 'buffer zone' is retained around the development at all times to help mitigate the potential for visual and noise 23 of 70 impacts within the surrounding area.
Impact on/ from the Bridleway
A Bridleway runs east to west to the south of the site, outside the boundaries of the application site. When the application was initially submitted the bridleway was incorrectly shown running along the southern track within the site and it was annotated on the plans as a Public Right of Way. Amended plans have been since been submitted and the Bridleway is now correctly shown and annotated on the submitted plans in accordance with Hampshire County Council’s record.
There is currently intermittent landscaping (trees/shrubbery) between the Bridleway and the site and therefore access into the site is currently possible through the gaps. It is considered necessary to make users of the Bridleway aware of the use of the site so that they do not unknowingly stray into the site. The applicant has therefore proposed to erect a 0.9 metre high post and rail fence along the length of the bridleway as a form of demarcation between the bridleway and the site. Along the fence 5 signs would be displayed to make the users of the bridleway aware that the site is used in connection with paintballing.
It is considered important to ensure that the proposed use would be integrated into the surrounding environment as much as possible and therefore the use of a post and rail fence and associated signage is considered to be an appropriate and a preferable alternative to a higher and more visually intrusive barrier between the bridleway and the site.
A post and rail fence is characteristic of a rural boundary treatment and is considered to be sufficient to ensure that people are aware that access into the site is restricted. A gap in the fence is proposed towards the middle of the site, however, a sign would be displayed either side and it is considered that users would therefore be sufficiently informed. The number of signs proposed and their size is also considered to be appropriate and given their function would not need advertisement consent.
Policy E6 of the Local Plan states that consideration should be given to the impact of development on sense of place, remoteness or tranquillity and the quiet enjoyment of the countryside from Public Rights of Way's.
The nearest gaming area proposed would be over 120m away from the nearest point of the bridleway. A paintball gun can shoot approximately 50m (65m with wind assistance) and therefore the gaming area would be a sufficient distance away to ensure that no stray shots would reach the bridleway. This distance would also help to mitigate the noise that would be generated by players and the paintball guns. Whilst the noise of people would be audible from the bridleway, the application site only forms a small section of the overall length of the Bridleway and it is considered that the proposal would not be detrimental to users overall enjoyment of the bridleway.
Significant concern has been raised that the noise of the paintball guns may startle horses using the bridleway and cause a potential danger to their rider. It is however noted that there would be a 120m distance between the bridleway and the nearest game area so any noise from the activity would be likely to be muffled by the surrounding vegetation. In addition consideration should also be given to other rural outdoor pursuits such as clay pigeon shooting which use more powerful and audible equipment. As such, on balance it is considered that the guns which would be used for the paintballing activity would not result in potential harmful impacts on the quiet enjoyment of the countryside or on the horses 24 of 70 using the bridleway.
Thus whilst it is recognised that the proposed paintball use would change ones existing experience of this stretch of bridleway, it is considered, that this would be not sufficient to be detrimental to the overall experience of the bridleway or the surrounding rural area.
Impact on Neighbouring Amenities
The nearest neighbouring properties are approximately 700m away and concerns have been expressed about the impact noise generated from the site, by both people and paintball guns, would have on these neighbouring properties.
Supporting information has been submitted with the application which outlines the expected noise levels which would be experienced from surrounding neighbouring properties and compares the noise of a shot gun to that of a paintball gun.
The Council's Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the noise level information submitted and has verified that the noise generated by the paintball gun would not cause a regular disturbance at the nearest dwellings. Any noise heard from the guns or noise generated by people playing would not reach levels which would be considered to have a harmful impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.
As stated above, paintball activities are a rural leisure activity and thus whilst not frequently experienced by people are not uncommon to rural environments. In this instance the nearest residential properties are considered to be a sufficient distance away not to be detrimentally harmed by the noise of people or paintball noise and therefore no objection is raised on this ground.
The potential impact of traffic on neighbouring properties is discussed below.
Highways/Parking
Significant concern has been raised in response to the proposed application with regards to number of cars that the use would attract and that these would increase pressure on the surrounding road network including local villages.
Trip generations would be most likely to occur between 9.15-:13:00 and 13:30- 16:30 and the Highways Officer therefore notes that the arrivals and departures should generally be outside normal weekday peak periods. Furthermore the Highways Officer has stated that the vehicles to the proposed site would have already been using the surrounding road network to access the previous Lasham site which is within the locality and therefore it is considered that the proposal would not put significant further pressure on the surrounding road network. The relocation of the site to Bagmore Lane would specifically increase movements along this road, however, the Highways Officer is of the view that the road can accommodate this traffic. Furthermore, the proposal includes improvements to the existing access, improved visibility sightlines and a highways sign which would both inform people of where the Skirmish Centre is and warn other drivers of the entrance. The internal layout of the site also proposes passing bays which would ensure that no tail backs would occur towards the public highway. It is therefore considered that the proposed use of the site would not cause a detrimental impact on highways safety.
The Transport Strategy Officer also recognises that the proposed paintball facility is very close to the previous facility and that any vehicle movements generated by this proposal would already be using the surrounding Highway network. For this reason the Council 25 of 70 considers it unreasonable to seek any transport/infrastructure contributions towards Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport (BEST).
A Travel Plan was also requested for the proposed site. Whilst it is recognised that visitors to the site are unlikely to use public transport the promotion of car sharing is considered to be important to the scheme and is something that a business of this nature can promote. Furthermore, given that participants often come in groups, it is likely that car sharing would occur. The Travel Plan is considered to be meet the Hampshire Travel Plan requirements and would be conditioned should the application be approved.
The application proposes a 70 space car park, including 2 disabled spaces which would be delineated by wooden logs. There is no specific parking standard for the proposed use, however it is considered important to ensure that the site would not provide an under provision of spaces and result in vehicles parking on the highway. The Highways Officer notes that there is scope within the site layout to provide additional spaces if so required and given that the reception area is remote from the public highway, the overflow of parking on the public highway is extremely unlikely. The proposals also make provision for 6 cycle spaces which may encourage employees or local users of the site to cycle. Adequate parking and cycle provision has therefore been provided in accordance with Policies A1 and A2 of the Local Plan.
Trees
Herriard Common is mixed species plantation woodland and is not a designated Ancient Woodland as stated in some letters of objection. The woodland is recognised to have areas of coniferous and broadleaved trees with the age of the trees varying across the woodland. Of particular relevance are a number of over mature beech trees and one noteworthy ancient beech tree to the east.
The proposal would require the removal of trees to allow for access improvements, the provision of passing places, a car park and reception area. The proposal would also require the removal of undergrowth up to 2.4m within the 9 gaming areas to enable them to operate adequately and safely.
The access improvements would require the removal of a Scotts Pine Tree, which the Tree Officer recognises to be of poor quality. The Tree Officer also recognises that the improvements could result in the decline of a nearby beech and oak tree, however in the overall context of the woodland and given that the trees are not of visually importance to the street scene, no objection is raised in this event. The Tree Officer also raises no objection to the removal of a number of trackside trees to provide passing places, due to their limited wider visual value.
The car park and reception area will require the feeling of both low value birch and sycamore woodland and coniferous woodland. The Tree Officer notes that the loss of this area of woodland would have a negligible impact on the overall integrity of the woodland and would not have any wider visual impact.
The proposed game areas have been located within the coniferous woodland areas, with the exception of one that is within an area of both beech and mixed coniferous. The games areas will result in soil compaction and stem damage that will cause the trees within these areas to gradually decline and some trees would inevitably die and need to be removed. Although rotation measures are proposed it is recognised these would not be sufficient to allow for regeneration. However, the areas that are allocated as gaming areas have an existing lower ecological value and none of the trees within the areas have a cultural/ 26 of 70 historical interest. As such, the Tree Officer does not raise any objections.
The Tree Officer has requested that additional landscaping is planted around a veteran beech tree to help prevent the impact of any stray shots from game area 2 to the tree. This landscaping could be achieved as part of a wider Woodland Management Plan condition.
As such, there are no objection raised to the proposed development in arboricultural terms.
Biodiversity/ Ecology
The proposed use of the site as a paintball activity site will have an impact on the biodiversity of the woodland and this needs to be assessed against PPS9 and Policy E7 of the Local Plan. The application has been submitted with an Ecological Survey and the Biodiversity Officer has provided comprehensive comments in response to the survey which has been copied in full into the consultation responses above.
The Biodiversity Officer recognises that the Ecological Survey submitted was not carried out at an optimum time of year, however, the Biodiversity Officer is satisfied with the broad conclusions of the findings and has concluded that the impact of the proposal on biodiversity within the woodland would not be significant. This is because the areas of development and gaming are proposed within areas of existing coniferous planting which are of less ecological importance than the semi-natural and broadleaved plantation. The Biodiversity Officer is also satisfied that conditions would be adequate to prevent the areas of more ecological interest being adversely affected by the proposal. Furthermore, the proposed development would allow habitat enhancement to be sought in the areas which are more ecologically sensitive.
The site is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) due to its past status as a wooded common and the presence of Small Teasel, a notable plant species within Hampshire. Wooded commons are usually characterised by open-grown veteran trees, however, within the Herriard Common only one such tree is recorded which suggests that the majority of the site has been replanted. Small Teasel was last recorded in 1986. It was not rediscovered during the 2009 survey submitted by the applicant, however, this could have been as a result of the time of year the survey was undertaken. The Biodiversity Officer states that it is unlikely that Teasel will be discovered in the gaming areas due to the coniferous planting, however, it is considered to be necessary for a condition to be attached for a re-survey to be undertaken during an appropriate time of year.
White admiral butterflies are a UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species and Silver Washed fritillary butterflies are a Hampshire BAP species, both of which have been recorded in the woodland. The Biodiversity Officer notes that these are unlikely to be found within coniferous areas or near the woodland rides. However, the butterflies are both species of conservation importance and measures to benefit them will be controlled via condition.
Red Kites, Buzzards, and Owls have all been noted as being spotted within the surrounding area. The Biodiversity Officer notes that there are a number of mature trees which have the potential to support roosting bats and breeding birds, however the site is unlikely to be used by these birds due to the predominance of coniferous planting . However, to address this a condition will be attached to ensure that details of the timing/ ecological watching brief/ felling procedures are submitted in addition to a habitat improvement scheme. 27 of 70
The Ecological Assessment concludes that the game areas are within coniferous planting areas that are less well developed and have ‘sparse ground flora’. Given the time of year that the survey was undertaken the findings could underestimate the species richness. As such, the Biodiversity Officer has required that a condition be attached for a survey in the spring/ early summer to provide baseline data which can then be used to monitor the site in the future. A wildlife protection/management plan condition would also be attached which would include measures to confine access within designated gaming areas and pathways only to help prevent wider impact.
The Ecological survey does not assess the proposed reception area or car park. However, again this would be concentrated in an area of coniferous planting and any harmful impacts can be controlled by conditions.
Details of a claim to Hampshire County Council for a Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT) in 2005 through the site have been provided by an objector. This claim was refused due to insufficient evidence. As part of the claim the Hampshire County Council Environment Officer stated that they would have serious concerns about the use of vehicles across the site as it could cause irreparable disturbance to the flora and fauna of the SINC. However, this planning application has been submitted 5 years after this claim and has been considered by the Council's Biodiversity Officer who raises no objections subject to conditions. Furthermore, the tracks have since been laid and therefore any damage to the flora and fauna has already occurred. These tracks are discussed further under the heading, 'Other matters'.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
The application was screened to determine whether an EIA was required. Consideration was given to the size, scale, location and possible cumulative impacts of the proposed development and it was concluded that the development did not warrant an EIA.
Flood Risk
Given that the application site is over 1 hectare and is located within Flood Zone 1, a Flood Risk Assessment was required and was consequently submitted during the course of the application. The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposal and the FRA and a condition will be attached to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the FRA.
Temporary Permission
In the event that the proposal is acceptable it is considered important to monitor the site in terms of the ecology, trees and landscape. As such, a temporary 5 year permission is proposed which would require the restoration of the site after 5 years or a new planning application to be submitted to allow the proposal to be re-assessed.
Other Matters
It has been noted within letters of objections that the hard core tracks which run around the perimeter of the application site were laid last year and are have been seen by many as an attempt to begin development in relation to the paintball activity. The agent has confirmed that the tracks were laid in association with the forestry operations that occur on the site and the Environment Agency have confirmed that a license was granted for material to be imported into the site for the tracks. Given the nature of forestry operations the provision of 28 of 70 a rural track would not be uncharacteristic. In the event that the application was refused and the forestry operations were to continue it would not be considered expedient to pursue the removal of the tracks.
Concerns have been raised that the site would attract vandals. The security of the site is predominately a matter for the owners of the site to ensure, however, the proposed highways sign is designed to be removed so that after hours it can be removed and replaced first thing in the morning. The display of this sign can be controlled via condition to ensure that it is displayed during opening hours. The containers on the site would also provide ample provision of secure storage. Whilst the signs along the Bridleway would advertise that the sign is used in connection with paintballing, these are important to warn users of the bridleway and given the remote location of the site it is unlikely that it would attract vandals.
The reason why the lease on the previous site Skirmish was not extended is not a material planning consideration.
All remaining matters raised within the public representations are not considered to be material to the determination of the planning application.
Reasons for Approval:
1. The principle of the proposed development is considered acceptable in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance 17 'Planning for open space and recreation' and Policy C9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 2. The proposed development preserves the landscape character and scenic quality of the area and as such is considered to accord with Policy E6 of the Basingstoke & Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 3. Adequate parking would be provided to serve the proposed development and as such the proposal complies with Policy A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 4. The proposed development would not result in an undue noise to neighbouring amenities and as such complies with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 5. The development has no significant adverse impact on the biodiversity of the area and therefore complies with Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan and Planning Policy Statement 9 'Biodiversity and Geological Conservation'. 6. The proposed development would not have an adverse impact on highways safety and as such complies with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 7. The proposed development would not cause harm to any trees of significant importance and as such complies with Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 8. The proposed development would not result in an increase in flood risk to the surrounding area and as such complies with Planning Policy Statement 25 'Development and Flood Risk.
29 of 70 RECOMMENDATION:
It is RECOMMENDED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:
Drawing No. R.10.01/P4 received 24 December 2010 Cess pool elevations received 18 January 2010 Drawing No. R.10.01/P7 received 18 January 2010 Drawing No. R.10.01/P.3A received 13 April 2010 Drawing No. R.10.01/P9B received 11 June 2010 Drawing No. R.10.01/P2D received 11 June 2010 Drawing No. R.10.01/P1/B received 11 June 2010 Drawing No. R.10.01/P5C received 11 June 2010 Drawing No. R.10.01/P6A received 15 June 2010 Flood risk Assessment received 3 February 2010 Travel Plan submitted on the 11 June 2010
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
2. The use shall be discontinued and all ancillary structures associated with the use removed from the site on or before the 30th July 2015. All works necessary for the reinstatement of the land to its former state and condition shall then be carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority within three calendar months of the date on which the use is discontinued. REASON: The Local Planning Authority are not entirely satisfied that the use is suitable for this area. This temporary permission is given to enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the suitability of the use.
3. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i. the parking and turning of vehicles of site operatives and visitors 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
REASON: In the interests of Highway Safety and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
30 of 70 4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority no development shall take place on site until details of the method of construction of the means of access, car park and access track, including passing places, as shown on Mursell & Company drawing R.10.01/P5C and R.10.01/P2D have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved access, car park and access track details shall be constructed and fully implemented before the commencement of building and other operations on the site or the use hereby approved is commenced and shall be thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that a satisfactory means of access to the highway is constructed before the approved buildings in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
5. No development including site clearance, demolition, ground preparation, temporary access construction/widening, material storage or construction works shall commence on site until a Tree Protection Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include the specification and positioning of temporary tree protective fencing and ground protection where required. The approved tree protection shall be erected prior to any site activity commencing and maintained until the area is to be landscaped. No development or other operations shall take place other than in complete accordance with the Tree Protection Plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself.
6. No development, including any demolition works, soil moving, temporary access construction/widening, or storage of materials, shall commence until a Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include details of the following:
(a) details of how mature trees and woodland habitats adjacent to the area of the proposed development will be protected during the construction works.
(b) details of the timing/ecological watching brief/felling procedures required to address the protection of breeding birds and bats before and during any development works.
(c) details of mitigation proposals for mitigating any potential adverse effects on butterflies and notable plant species and any features that they are dependent on.
(d) details of mitigation proposals for controlling access within the areas identified as having higher ecological value outside the gaming areas.
No development or other operations shall take place other than in complete accordance with the approved Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
No habitat or other landscape features that are to be retained as part of the approved Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan shall be damaged or destroyed, or removed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority, 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 31 of 70 the incident. The scheme of remedial action must be approved by the Local Planning Authority before practical completion of the development and implemented in accordance with the approved timetable. REASON: To minimise the impact on the existing biodiversity of the site and its surroundings, in accordance with Policy E7 of the Local Plan.
7. No development shall take place until full details of a habitat enhancement and management scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The details shall include: Purpose, aims and objectives for the scheme, taking into account the site's existing biodiversity, results of species surveys and loss of habitats resulting from the development; A full specification and method statement for implementation of the enhancement / habitat creation proposals Aftercare and long term management; Timing of the works and timetable for implementation; Monitoring.
REASON: To help compensate for habitat loss resulting from the development and help to maintain the biodiversity of the area in the long term, in accordance with Policy E7 of the Local Plan.
8. Prior to the commencement of development a Woodland Management Plan shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan should include details of exclusion and buffer zones, specification of game zones, the rotation of game zones and the remedial treatment of resting zoned, the management of trees and ground flora and paths and the removal of litter and debris. The plan shall also include a timetable for its implementation and subsequent continuing operation over the temporary 5 year period. The development shall be carried out in fully accordance with the approved Management Plan for the duration of the temporary 5 year period. REASON: In the interests of the site and in accordance with Policies E1, E6 and E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
9. No external lighting shall be installed or used until details of its proposed design, positioning, method and intensity of illuminance have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details approved shall be implemented and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of neighbouring amenities and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 1996-2011
10. No additional external lighting shall be installed at the site unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the visual amenity of the surrounding area and to prevent light pollution in accordance with Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2001.
32 of 70 11. The development shall be operated in complete accordance with the principles agreed within the Green Travel Plan forming part of this application, and 12 months from the date that the development hereby permitted becomes operative, a progress report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority (and annually thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority). The progress report shall provide details of the implementation of the Travel Plan and any further proposals for the achievement of its aims REASON: To encourage travel to and from the site by means other than the private car, in order to promote sustainable development with particular regard to transport and in accordance with advice contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note13 (Transport) and Policy A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Adopted Local Plan (1996- 2011)
12. The fence and signage hereby approved adjacent to the bridleway, along the southern boundary of the site, shall be erected/ displayed prior to the Skirmish Centre opening on the site and shall thereafter be maintained in that condition, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of users of the Bridleway and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
13. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment submitted on the 3 February 2010, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To prevent flood risk and in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 25: Planning and Flood Risk.
14. Any gates provided shall have a minimum clear entry width of 5.5m and shall be set back a distance of 14m from the edge of the carriageway of the adjoining highway with the gates opening into the site away from the highway and shall be thereafter maintained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
15. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied, or the use commence, whichever is the sooner, until provision for the turning, loading and unloading of vehicles and the parking of 70 vehicles, including 2 disabled spaces, and a minimum 6 cycle and 3 motorcycle spaces has been made within the curtilage of the premises and the areas of land so provided and shown on the approved drawings Mursell & Company drawing R.10.01/P3A shall not be used for any purpose other than the turning, loading and unloading and parking of vehicles, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies E1 and A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
16. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, no development shall commence before visibility splays of 2.4m by 160m in a westerly direction (looking left at exit) and 2.4m by 80m in an easterly direction (looking right at exit) at the junction of the access road with the public highway have been provided, and these splays shall thereafter be permanently kept free of obstacles more than 0.6m above the level of the adjacent carriageway. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
33 of 70 17. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority the use of the development hereby approved shall not commence on-site until the necessary consents have been sought for the ‘Road Direction Sign’ shown on the approved drawings Mursell & Company R.10.01/P9B and that sign has been erected in accordance with the approved details. The sign shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The approved ‘Road Direction Sign’ includes a hanging ‘Sign board’ that shall be displayed at least 45 minutes before the development hereby approved opens for business each day and it shall remain continually on display until at least 30 minutes after the development hereby approved closes for business each day when the hanging ‘Sign board’ only shall be removed, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
18. The premises shall not open before 09:15 hours or remain open after 16:30 hours on Mondays to Sundays or any recognised public holidays. Any change or variation to the specified hours shall be subject of a further planning application. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
Notes to the Applicant:
1. 1.1 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.
1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre- commencement conditions have been met.
1.3 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £85 per request or £25 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.
34 of 70 2. Consent under the Town and Country Planning Acts must not be taken as approval for any works carried out on any footway, including a Public Right of Way, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the publically maintained highway. The development could involve works within the public highway. It is an offence to commence those works without the permission of the Highway Authority, Hampshire County Council. In the interests of highway safety the development should not commence on-site until permission has been obtained from the Highway Authority authorising any necessary works within the publically maintained highway. Public Utility apparatus may also be affected by the development. Contact the appropriate public utility service to ensure agreement on any necessary alterations. Advice on this matter can be obtained from Hampshire County Council’s Area Office, telephone 0845 8504422.
3. The applicant is advised that the change of use of the woodland to include recreational activities may require a modification of any existing risk assessment for woodland usage.
4. In relation to Condition No. 6, the Wildlife Protection and Mitigation plan should include a map showing the location of all the access pathways to be created between gaming areas and these should be located on the side of woodland rides which receive less sunlight wherever possible.
In relation to Condition No. 7, the Habitat Enhancement and Management Plan should include all the management/mitigation proposals given in Section 7 of JFA Ltd’s Ecological Report and should include a re-survey of the site at an appropriate time of year to determine the location of small teasel on site before development commences. (For info - Small teasel flowers between July and September). A botanical survey of the woodland to identify any other notable species present within the woodland will need to be carried out at the next appropriate time of year (spring/early summer) following any planning permission granted. This will provide a basis for future monitoring. The monitoring scheme should measure the success of the habitat enhancement measures given in JFA Ltd’s ecological report so that the management can be adjusted if needs be. The management plan should cover a time period of at least 5 years.
5. The applicant is advised that a separate application for advertisement consent will be required for the proposed highways sign.
35 of 70 Minor and Other Application
Cttee: 28/07/2010 Item No. 02
Application no: BDB/72128 For Details and Plans Click here
Site Address 14 Wallis Road, Basingstoke, RG21 3DN Proposal Change of use from C3 (Dwelling House) to C2 (Residential Institution) Retrospective
Registered: 03/03/2010 Expiry Date: 28/04/2010 Type of Retention of Case Officer: Bethan Bramley Application: Development 01256 845441 (Section 73A) Applicant: Ms M Cornick Liaise Agent: Bell Cornwell Partnership Loddon Ltd Ward: Eastrop Ward Member(s): Cllr G James Cllr S Parker
Parish: OS Grid Reference: 463810,151425
Recommendation: Approve
General Comments
This application was deferred from the Development Control Committee of 9 June 2010 to allow the applicant to provide further information with the aim of addressing a number concerns, which can be summarised as follows:
1. Management of staff and noise associated with the 24 hr operation of the premises. 2. The operation and requirements of the external office and whether sound insulation could be installed. 3. The need for guidance in terms of the standards for care homes and the regularity framework. 4. Traffic movements to and from the site. 5. Potential for a designated smoking area and bin area. 6. Whether prior notification has been sought for works to trees within the site.
The applicant has now submitted further supporting information, which is appended to this Committee Report for the information of Members. This details the management of the home by Liaise Loddon and provides a number of suggestions with the aim of addressing the above concerns.
Officer Comment on Additional Information
1. The supplementary document submitted by the applicant and appended to this report provides greater clarity regarding the operations of the care home. The majority of the issues that have been addressed relate to the way in which the care home is run, which would be for the applicant to manage and is outside the remit of the Local Planning Authority.
36 of 70 There is a fenced area creating a buffer with 14 Wallis Road, which the applicant has stated they intend to retain to safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring property and to provide a vegetable plot. Whilst a fenceline is shown on the submitted site plan, it is not considered to be reasonable or necessary to control that this area remains given the acceptability of the proposed use in this residential area.
2. The applicant has confirmed that the office within the former garage is only used by management between 7.30am and 8.00pm daily and that research is being undertaken in relation to the sound insulation of this outbuilding. Officers consider that the use of the office would not give rise to a level of noise that would be over and above that associated with a residential area e.g. voices, radios, laundry. As such, it is not considered reasonable to impose conditions requiring sound insulation to be installed or limiting the hours of its use. The concerns of neighbours in relation to noise fundamentally relate to the management of staff, and the applicant has stated that efforts would be made to address this.
3. The supporting information also provides details on the standards required by the Care Quality Commission in relation to residential homes. These standards do not specify an 'ideal' location for premises, however the information notes a number of factors that are considered.
4. In relation to traffic movements, the applicant has confirmed that the care home's own vehicle transports residents to activities approximately three times a day and there are no additional deliveries over and above those which would be expected for a domestic household.
5. The supplementary information provided includes a plan showing a proposed bin and smoking area along the southern boundary of the site. This would be located adjacent to the highway away from any boundary with neighbouring properties and is therefore considered to be an appropriate location. Whilst the Local Planning Authority cannot reasonably control where bins would be stored or where people would stand to smoke, a condition is recommended for details of any means of enclosure to be submitted and agreed in writing, in order to ensure this would have an acceptable visual impact on the Conservation Area. The applicant has also stated that a request has been made for the replacement of the existing Eurobins with standard residential wheelie bins, which would again minimise visual impact.
6. In respect of the trees within the site, Tree Officer has confirmed that a notice of intent for works to trees within the Conservation Area has been submitted and the works have now been completed to the satisfaction of the Tree Officer.
The supplementary document submitted by the applicant and appended to this report allows for a fuller assessment of the proposal. The majority of the issues that have been addressed are outside the remit of the Local Planning Authority. As such, Officers consider the scheme to be acceptable in terms of its impact on residential amenities, the character of the Conservation Area and highway safety. As such, the recommendation remains as per that presented within the Committee Meeting of the 9 June 2010, with the exception of Condition 3 which has been amended to include reference to details of the designated smoking area.
The following update was presented to the Committee on 9 June 2010.
37 of 70 Update Presented at 09/06/2010 Committee
Viewing Panel
Members visited the site and were met by the applicant. Members noted the current layout of the site and viewed the existing parking area and garden. Members noted the relationship of the application site to neighbouring dwellings an the boundary treatment. Members were advised that a separate strip of land had been set aside between the application property and no. 20 Wallis Road. This area acted as a buffer strip and would, in future be used as a vegetable garden. Members raised queries regarding noise and the applicant responded on ways in which they were working with residents to resolve concerns.
Members queried the location of any objectors to this application. Officers have prepared a plan indicating the proximity of objectors to the application site and this will be displayed on the visualiser at the meeting.
Update
Additional comments received from neighbour at No. 20 Wallis Road, raising the following points:
The residents are transient in nature. This is a respite centre and clientele changes from week to week Disagree that 12 adults on site would be normal for a 4 bedroom house Report does not address the noise disturbance caused by the employees of this business and the improper use of a garage as the office base, which compromises the privacy of clients Information on disturbance will be passed on to the Environmental Health Team should this application be successful
Officer Note
The length of time that residents remain at the institution is not material to the assessment of this application, as this does not affect the use of the premises. Whilst discussions amongst staff may be audible to neighbouring residents, the content of these conversations are not a material planning consideration and any impact on the privacy of its residents is a matter for the institution's management to assess.
The full content of the original report is copied below.
Committee Report associated to the Committee Meeting of the 09/06/2010
General Comments
This application has been brought to the Development Committee in line with the scheme of delegation, due to the number of objections received and the officer recommendation for approval.
Description of Site
The application site occupies a corner plot on the junction of Wallis Road with Castle Road. It comprises a detached single storey building with vehicular access off Castle Road to a private driveway. The amenity space of the property is to the south of the property, 38 of 70 adjacent to Wallis Road. The site is enclosed by two metre high close-boarded fencing, trees and hedging. The site is located within the Fairfields Conservation Area, which is subject to an Article 4 Direction.
The property contains four en-suite bedrooms and communal living areas. The detached flat-roof garage to the north west corner of the site is used as a laundry and staff room.
Proposal
The application seeks retrospective permission for the change of use from C3 (Dwelling House) to C2 (Residential Institution). The premises houses four adults with autism. There are no resident carers on site, although carers attend the property on shifts throughout a 24 hr cycle with up to 8 members of staff at any one time.
Relevant Planning History
BDB 58647 Residential redevelopment of site Granted 03/09/04 BDB 67435 Construction of a first floor to existing bungalow Refused involving raising of the roof and the construction of 21/01/08 dormer windows. Erection of a single storey rear extension, construction of a front chimney and alterations to ground floor windows. Construction of a pitched roof over existing garage to create living space above with external stairway. Demolition of existing porch
BDB 68905 Erection of a single storey rear and side extension. Granted Installation of windows, replacement of roof tiles and 07/08/08 rendering. Demolition of existing porch (part retrospective)
BDB 68906 Erection of a single storey rear and side extension. Withdrawn Installation of windows, replacement of roof tiles and 16/07/08 rendering. Demolition of existing porch
Consultations
Local Highway Authority: No objection
Environmental Health Officer: No objection
Public Observations
7 letters of objection, raising the following points: The care home is run as a profit-making business Five other care homes have been operated by the same business, also without planning permission Loss of residential amenities Lack of evidence to demonstrate need for a care home in this area Planning procedures have been disregarded by seeking retrospective permission Residents at the home have been put at risk as they will have to move if planning permission is refused 39 of 70 Company is funded by taxpayers who should have had the opportunity to comment prior to this type of care home opening and operating in their community. No stakeholder meeting held with local residents by the company Concern over type of residents at the home and the impact on public safety Are Liaise Loddon paying business rates? Excessive parking on drive and road Large commercial bins on driveway within Conservation Area Noise from televisions, radios, telephones, and general coming and going from office within the garage The planning department has allowed several care homes to be run without planning permission Unsocial behaviour of residents Impact on character of residential Conservation Area The area already has numerous social service facilities Change of use sets a precedent Noises from residents are frightening The building is not suitable for the special needs of the residents, the property should have been sound-proofed Smell from people smoking outside the back door
Planning Policy and Material Considerations
Policy Considerations
The site lies within the Settlement Policy Boundary of Basingstoke and within the Fairfields Conservation Area.
National policy guidance
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system including the importance of good design.
Planning Policy Guidance 13: 'Transport' (PPG13) seeks to promote more sustainable transport choices for development proposals, including increased accessibility by public transport to reduce the need to travel, especially by car.
Circular 05/05 provides national guidance on planning obligations and is also a material planning consideration.
South East Plan (SEP)
Policy S1 of the SEP recognises that the planning system has a role to play in developing and shaping healthy communities and criteria (ii) promotes mixed and inclusive communities, with a particular focus on access to housing for socially excluded groups.
Policy H4 of the SEP requires Local Planning Authorities to provide for a full range of housing needs in their administrative area including provision for those with particular needs including older and disabled people, students, ethnic and minority households, families with children, Gypsies and travellers and others with specialist requirements. Paragraph 7.12 states that "Housing provision is far more than just a 'numbers game'. It must support the needs of the whole community, and include the provision of both market and affordable housing, as well as reflecting the range of types, sizes and tenures both
40 of 70 needed and demanded."
Basingstoke & Deane Borough Local Plan (BDBLP)
Policy D4 states that ‘except where development proposals can be shown to result in a overall planning benefit, permission will not be granted for development, redevelopment or change of use which would result in an overall depletion of the existing dwelling stock’.
Policy D5 states that residential and other development and redevelopment proposals which contribute to the social, economic and environmental well-being of a settlement will be permitted within the Basingstoke Town Settlement Policy Boundary, within which this site is located.
Policy C4 states that proposals for residential development specifically designed and suitable in type and location to meet the needs of the elderly and people with special needs, including care and or nursing homes to meet the needs of the Health Service Community Care departments, will be permitted within defined settlements.
Policy E1 seeks to ensure that proposals for new development are of a high standard of design, make efficient use of land, respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and do not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. Proposals are required to respond to the local context of the area.
Policy E3 states that development must preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of Conservation Areas.
Policy A1 states that parking for new development proposals will be flexibly assessed, dependant on individual circumstances, using as a basis the car and other parking standards set out in the Council's Parking Strategy and Standards Supplementary Planning Guidance.
Policy A2 promotes the provision of cycling, pedestrian and public transport to meet the needs of a development. It states that funding of local transport improvements will be sought in conjunction with new development where appropriate.
Policy C1 states that development will be permitted only where there are, or will be, adequate infrastructure and community facilities. The Council will negotiate to secure planning obligations to ensure that such infrastructure and facilities are provided in time to meet the needs arising from development.
In addition to the above, the Community Strategy for the Borough is considered to be a material consideration to the assessment of this application. Furthermore, the S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document is a material consideration to this application.
The need for planning permission
This application has been submitted in response to an investigation into the use of the property by the Council's Planning Enforcement and Compliance Team. The original property was built as a Class C3 dwelling house and the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Order 2010 states that a C3 use includes a dwelling occupied by not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents. A C2 use is a residential institution such as a residential school/college, hospital or convalescent/nursing homes. "Care" is defined within the Order 41 of 70 as personal care for people in need of such care by reason of old age, disablement, past or present dependence on alcohol or drugs or past or present mental disorder, and in Class C2, also includes the personal care of children and medical care and treatment.
There has been correspondence between the applicant's agent and the Local Planning Authority since Officers were alerted to the use of the property. In dealing with this enforcement case, the Local Planning Authority considered that a material change of use had occurred from a C3 use to a C2 use due to the level of care administered, and advised that a retrospective application to regularise the matter was required. In submitting this application however, the applicant's agent has maintained that the use of the property remains in the C3 Use Class.
Given the disagreement as to the need for planning permission, the Local Planning Authority along with the applicant's agent have jointly sought a legal opinion on the planning status of a similar premises that is also run by the applicant. The Counsel opinion concluded that, on balance, a change of use from C3 to C2 had occurred at this other premises. He considers that, 'while there are a number of indications of a shared communal experience to a degree among the residents, the very high level of care afforded appears to me to go beyond the “supervisory” and to indicate that it is difficult to say that the residents function together as a single household'.
Given the similarities between the case investigated by Counsel and the property that is the subject of this planning application, it is the opinion of the Local Planning Authority that a material change of use has occurred at 14 Wallis Road and planning permission is therefore required.
Principle
It is acknowledged that a single dwelling house (as defined under use class C3) would be lost through permitting this proposal, a matter which would normally be resisted under Policy D4 of the Local Plan. However, in this case, given that the proposal would provide a residential (C2) facility for those with special needs, and as an element of residential use would be retained due to the nature of this accommodation, it is considered that there is no objection to this proposal against Policy D4. Furthermore, the change of use of this property from a residential dwellinghouse to a C2 use is acceptable in principle under Policy D5 of the Local Plan as it is considered that this development contributes to social, economic and environmental well-being.
The key policy against which this application should be assessed is Policy C4 of the Local Plan. This application proposes residential accommodation specifically designed to meet the needs of individuals with special needs, providing specialist care and support for individuals with autism. As the site is within the defined settlement of Basingstoke, there is no requirement for the applicant to demonstrate a specific local need for the facility, in accordance with Policy C4.
In addition to relevant planning policies, the Department of Health publication entitled "Valuing People Now" is a three-year strategy for people with learning disabilities and was published in 2009. The document states that the Government will work to ensure that mainstream housing policies are inclusive of people with learning disabilities and seeks to ensure that people with learning disabilities have more choice and control over their living conditions. The Strategy provides four guiding principles which are Rights; Independent Living; Control and Inclusion. Whilst not policy contained within the Development Plan, the aforementioned document does form a material consideration.
42 of 70 It should also be noted that there have been recent and ongoing changes to the legislation surrounding Autism. On 22 October 2009, the Autism Bill passed its final stage in the House of Lords. The Bill received Royal Assent in November 2009 and became the Autism Act. This Act has been backed by the Hampshire Autistic Society along with other societies and trust throughout the country. The implications of the Autism Act will be clarified later this year with the publication of a National Strategy.
The proposed facility would aid the integration of its residents into the local community, and would provide access to local facilities and an element of independent living. This proposal therefore achieves the general aims of the Governments Autism Bill and as such, officers consider that this proposal does accord with the aim of Policy C4 as the accommodation is specifically designed and suitable in type and location to meet the needs of those with special needs.
Impact on character
The change of use of the property has not resulted in any external changes to the building. The driveway and garden areas are retained in the same position as when it was occupied as a dwellinghouse and therefore the layout of the site retains the same character as its previous use. The extent of hardstanding to provide parking areas has not been altered as part of the change of use and therefore the capacity for parking has not increased. Under the use of the property as a single dwellinghouse, there would be no restriction on the number of visitors or the number of parked cars and, as such, there would already be potential for some visual impact of parked vehicles. The context of this residential area is such that there are already a number of parked cars within the curtilage of surrounding properties and on the street.
The change of use to a residential institution and the potential for eight staff on site at any one time is likely to result in an increase in regular movements that would be different to the pattern of use associated with a single dwellinghouse. However, it is considered that the occupation of the premises by four residents and the number of staff and visitors would result in a relatively low intensity use. It is considered that the nature of the use of this residential institution would not result in significantly higher movements than that of the existing four bedroom dwellinghouse and would not be detrimental to the character of the area. Furthermore, as noted above, cars would be parked on an existing area of hardstanding and this visual impact would not be dissimilar to the existing pattern of parking associated with this residential area.
The only discernible visual difference between 14 Wallis Road and its neighbouring residential properties is the presence of a commercial Eurobin to the front of the property. There are also other domestic-style wheelie bins to the front of the property. These bins are partially screened by existing boundary fencing, but are visible within the street scene. In order to preserve the special quality of the Conservation Area, it is considered that a bin store should be provided to enclose the Eurobin and other wheelie bins, thereby screening them from view. A condition is therefore recommended for details of bin storage to be submitted and provided within 3 months of the permission.
The proposal would respond to its local context and would preserve the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area, thereby complying with Policies E1 and E3 of the Local Plan.
43 of 70 Impact on residential amenities
A number of concerns regarding noise from this property have been raised by objectors, both with regards to noisy behaviour of the residents themselves and also through general coming and going related to the use of the residential institution and its staff.
The supporting information for this application states that residents of this institution have limited communication skills and do exhibit high intensity challenging behaviours. However, the symptoms of autism vary between individuals and it cannot be assumed that all residents of an institution such as this would create undue noise and disturbance. Whilst this application is retrospective and therefore neighbours may have received some noise and disturbance to date, the potential for noisy behaviour would vary from person to person (as with any residential development) and different residents would occupy the accommodation over the lifetime of the development. It is therefore important to assess the impact of this development in general terms rather than the basis of its immediate impact.
The property is located within a suburban residential area, with gardens abutting one another. As such, some noise and disturbance would be expected between occupiers of these dwellings as a result of general domestic activities and traffic movements. The application site itself is slightly different to its neighbours in that the layout positions the garden area to the south of the building, thereby abutting the road on two sides. As such, the only neighbour that immediately adjoins the property's amenity space is No. 20 Wallis Road, which has its front driveway directly adjoining the boundary with No. 14's garden. Furthermore, the main patio area that serves the residents of this institution is situated within an enclosed courtyard between two wings of the building, thereby containing the primary amenity space away from shared boundaries. An additional visual buffer is offered by mature landscaping along the boundary with No. 20.
Whilst the use of the building has changed, it remains fundamentally residential in character and is therefore considered to be appropriately located within a residential area. Although there may be coming and going from carers and visitors, there are only four permanent residents on site and it is considered that this use is not significantly intense as to cause undue noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents.
Furthermore, the Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that no noise complaints have been received in relation to this premises and no objection is raised to the proposal.
The existing building is single storey and is enclosed on all sides by 2m fencing, thereby maintaining the privacy of surrounding properties. Although an objection letter refers to smell caused by people smoking outside the property, this potential impact is no different to the occupation of this property as a dwellinghouse.
The proposal is considered to respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and thereby complies with Policy E1 of the Local Plan.
Highway Matters
The site is located within zone 2 in terms of the adopted parking standards and requires three car parking spaces to be provided. Five spaces can be accommodated within the curtilage of the site, and it is noted that on-site parking of two minibuses also takes place. The proposal provides adequate car parking and the Highways Officer raises no objection on these grounds.
44 of 70 Policy A2 of the Local Plan encourages the use of sustainable means of transport, which includes bicycles. Whilst the applicant refers to members of staff mostly using alternative methods of transport to the private car, provision of cycle stands have not been included as part of the application. In order to encourage this form of transport, a condition is recommended to ensure that details of cycle parking are provided to secure this provision.
S106 contributions
In line with Policy C1 of the BDBLP and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document on 'S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure', together with the guidance contained in Circular 05/05, this application has been scoped for contributions towards community facilities and local infrastructure improvements. This has concluded that no contributions are required due to the similar residential occupation of the property and therefore a legal agreement is not necessary in this case.
Other matters In response to the comments regarding the retrospective nature of this application, the applicant considered planning permission for this use was not required and therefore the use of the property was changed without consultation with the Local Planning Authority or local residents. This has been addressed in the "need for planning permission" section above. Clearly it is desirable for an applicant to apply for planning permission prior to starting a development or establishing a use, however the current planning regulations enable an applicant to apply retrospectively for planning permission. A retrospective application is assessed on its merits against the policies of the adopted Local Plan as any other application. Whilst applicants are encouraged to discuss proposals with existing residents prior to submitting an application for planning permission, this is not a statutory requirement. The issue of Council Tax is not a material planning consideration. It is noted that the applicant has a number of other similar properties in the Borough. It is not considered that this application would set a precedent, as each application is assessed on its individual merits against the planning policies relevant at the time of consideration. The comments regarding the conduct of the planning department in relation to these premises are not material to the assessment of this specific application.
Reasons for Approval:
1. The development respects the character of its surroundings and as such complies with PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS3: Housing and Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 2. Adequate parking would be provided to serve the development and as such the proposal complies with Policy A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 3. The development respects the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and as such complies with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011. 4. The development provides residential accommodation for those with special needs that is appropriate in type and location to the locality in accordance with Policy C4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 5. The application accords with Policies D4 and D5 of the Basingstoke & Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 as it provides a residential facility for those with special needs and contributes to the environment, social and economic well-being of the settlement. 45 of 70 RECOMMENDATION:
It is RECOMMENDED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:
OS map at 1:1250, Block Plan at 1:500, Drawing No. 07, received 3/03/10
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
2. Within three months of the date of this permission details of cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, such drawings to show the position, design, materials and finishes thereof. Within three months of the date of written agreement of the submitted and approved details by the Local Planning Authority the development shall be carried out, and thereafter maintained, in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To improve provision for cyclists and discourage the use of the car wherever possible and in accordance with Policy A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
3. Within three months of the date of this permission details of bin storage facilities and a designated smoking area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, such drawings to show the position, design, materials and finishes thereof. Within three months of the date of written agreement of the submitted and approved details by the Local Planning Authority the development shall be carried out, and thereafter maintained, in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that no obstruction is caused on the adjoining highway in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
4. Parking for a minimum of three vehicles shall be maintained within the curtilage of the property and the areas of land so provided shall not be used for any purpose other than the turning and parking of vehicles, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies E1 and A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
Notes to the Applicant:
1. 1.1 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.
1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre- 46 of 70 commencement conditions have been met.
1.3 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £85 per request or £25 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.
47 of 70 Minor and Other Application
Cttee: 28/07/2010 Item No. 03
Application no: BDB/72473 For Details and Plans Click here
Site Address Hartley House Cottage, Bottle Lane, Hartley Wespall, Hook, RG27 0AJ Proposal Erection of a two storey rear extension, front entrance porch and car port to side elevation. Installation of rooflight to existing side elevation
Registered: 14/05/2010 Expiry Date: 09/07/2010 Type of Householder Case Officer: Robert Steele Application: Permission 01256 845468 Applicant: Mrs Fisher Agent: Thorns Young Ltd Ward: Pamber and Ward Member(s): Cllr K G Chapman Silchester Cllr Mrs M J Tucker* Parish: Hartley Wespall OS Grid Reference: 469741,159114
Recommendation: Refuse
General Comments
This application has been brought to the Development Committee at the request of Cllr Tucker, for the following reason:
'The cottage is extremely small on a large plot. The extension proposed has been decreased in size following consultation with officers and sits neatly behind the house. We believe it should be seen in the context of its surroundings and would be helpful for the committee to view. Unfortunately, due to the time it has been unoccupied there has been a great deal of vandalism.'
The request is supported by Cllr Chapman.
Description of Site
The site is located within a rural location off the A339 within the small settlement of Turgis Green. The property is a traditional two storey dwelling with red brick walls, timber windows and a tiled roof. It is situated within a large elongated plot and is adjacent to open fields. A Site of Special Scientific Interest is located to the immediate west of the site. The boundary treatment to the rear of the site consists of a mixture of 1m high close boarded fencing and open post fencing. To the front of the site is an area for parking and a garden.
The dwelling is positioned centrally within Turgis Green in a prominent position on the corner of the lane, and as a result is clearly visible beyond the application site.
Proposal
The proposal is for the erection of a two storey rear extension, front porch and car port on the side elevation. The proposal includes the insertion of a roof light on western roofslope of the existing dwelling.
48 of 70 The rear extension would measure 9.5m in width, 4m in depth and 7.5m in height. This would provide an additional two bedrooms, enlarged kitchen and living room and a utility room.
The porch would measure 2.8m in width, 1.8m in depth and 4m in height.
The carport would measure 3m in width, 5.5m in depth and 4m in height.
The proposals would be constructed of materials to match the host dwelling.
Relevant Planning History
BDB 71565 Erection of a two storey rear extension, front entrance Withdrawn porch and car port to side elevation 18/12/09
Consultations
Parish Council: No objection.
'We hope that this time it can be approved'.
Local Highway Authority: No objection subject to condition requiring cycle provision.
Biodiversity Officer: No objection subject to conditions.
'The submission of the necessary Phase 2 bat survey has confirmed two species of bat are roosting within Hartley House Cottage. Having looked at the additional information that has been submitted, I am now satisfied we have all the outstanding information required with regards to the 3 tests of the Habitat’s Directive. There appears to be no satisfactory alternative in terms of meeting the applicants objectives for increased living space. I am also satisfied the mitigation proposals given in Section 4.4 of the bat survey report look likely to be sufficient to mitigate any potential impacts on bat populations. However, the actual details of the strategy to mitigate any potential impacts on bat populations will be required (see condition above).
Therefore, so long as you are satisfied that on all other counts that it is in the public interest to grant consent, I would suggest that, given no significant effects on bat conservation are expected, then the public interest is an overriding one.'
Natural England: No objection, subject to the view of the Council's in house Biodiversity Officer.
Public Observations: None.
Planning Policy and Material Considerations
The site is located outside any recognised Settlement Policy Boundary and as such lies within the Countryside. The proposal must therefore be assessed against the relevant Government guidance, countryside, design and amenity policies of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011 and supplementary documents.
49 of 70 Government Guidance
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS 1) states that good design ensures attractive, usable, durable and adaptable places and is a key element in achieving sustainable development. Good design is indivisible from good planning.
Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS 7) at para 1(vi) states that all development in rural areas should be well designed and inclusive, in keeping and scale with its location, and sensitive to the character of the countryside and local distinctiveness.
Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS 9) sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system.
Local Plan
Policy E1 states that all proposals for new development will be permitted provided that they are of a high standard of design, make efficient use of the land, respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and do not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. Policy E1(i) states that development proposals should therefore respond to the local context of buildings in terms of design, siting, density and spacing, reinforce the attractive qualities of local distinctiveness and enhance areas of poor design; extensions should respect their host dwelling.
Policy E6 states that planning permission will only be granted where it is demonstrated that the proposal will be sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of the area concerned.
Policy E7 of the Local Plan states that development should not have an adverse effect on protected species, harm the nature conservation interest of a statutory or non statutory wildlife nature conservation site or lead to the loss or deterioration of a key habitat type or harm integrity of linkages between such sites and habitats.
Policy A1 states that parking for new development proposals will be flexibly assessed, dependant on individual circumstances, using as a basis the car and other parking standards set out in the council’s Parking Strategy.
Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD's)
Basingstoke and Deane's Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2008 (DSSPD) is relevant to this application.
Appendix 13: 'Extending your Home and Replacement Dwellings' of the DSSPD contains advice to ensure a high standard of design stating that the basic form and size of extensions should be subservient to the original dwelling. The document states that the size and scale (width, depth and height) of an extension is critical in determining whether development will remain in proportion to the building. Extensions which are overly large in size and scale and are disproportionate in relation to the original dwelling will not be favoured by the Local Planning Authority. The document also seeks extensions that are designed in relation to the context of the area and street scene. The surrounding building styles, gaps between buildings, and the established pattern of development should be considered in the design of any extension. 50 of 70 Appendix 14: Countryside Design Summary of the DSSPD explains the relationship between the landscape and the settlement patterns and buildings, that are characteristic to the countryside.
The Supplementary Planning Document ‘Residential Parking Standards’ (2008) is also relevant setting minimum vehicle parking and cycle standards.
Planning History
An application for a similar scheme under BDB 71565 was withdrawn in 2009 following Officer concerns. The rear extension proposed under BDB 71565 would have measured approx 5.3m in depth and the ridge height matched that of the host dwelling. Given the depth of the host dwelling being 4.5m the scheme under BDB 71565 was considered to compete and fail to respect the host dwelling.
Impact on the Character of the Host Dwelling and Area
The current application has sought to overcome Officer's concerns by reducing the depth of the two storey rear extension to 4.3m, lowering the ridge height, setting in the side walls of the extension from the host and matching the fenestration detailing of the existing dwelling throughout the scheme. In this regard it is accepted that the proposal has gone some way in attempting to achieve a subservient appearance. However the depth of the two storey extension at 4.3m, is almost equivalent to the depth of the host dwelling (4.5m). On this basis it is considered that the proposal, by virtue of its depth and overall scale at a two storey height remains too bulky in comparison to the existing depth and scale of the host dwelling and would as a result compete with the host dwelling.
To significantly compound this impact the eaves height of the proposed extension is proposed to be higher than the eaves height of the host dwelling. This irregular relationship and poorly conceived roof design would further emphasis the unrespectable nature of the extension and would be at odds with the design and simple appearance of the host dwelling. A more considered extension would seek to match the eaves height of the existing dwelling.
In addition the incongruous design and scale of the proposed porch its overall size and height of 4m, would distort the existing simple front elevation of the property and incongruously extend above the lower cill height of the first floor windows in the front elevation. This is considered to result in a single storey extension that would be detrimental to the simple character of the host dwelling. Officer's accept that the concern regarding the porch was not mentioned in previous discussions with the applicant.
Both of these design interventions therefore are considered to significantly exacerbate the developments impact in relation to the host dwelling, which could otherwise be overcome by amendments to the design of the roof forms proposed.
The proposed development would be visible from the highway however it is acknowledged that it would not have an adverse wider impact on the special characteristics of the landscape, given that only short distance views that can be achieved from the highway, and no objection is therefore raised in this respect.
The proposed side carport given its light weight design and size would not compete or detract from the host dwelling and as such no objection is raised in this respect.
51 of 70 Given the concerns above the proposal is considered contrary to Policy E1 of the Local Plan and guidance contained within the Council's Design and Sustainability SPD Appendix 13 'Extending your Home and Replacement Dwellings'.
Impact on the Natural Environment
A complete Ecological Survey has been submitted in support of this application. It confirms that two species of Bat are roosting within the existing property. On review of the submitted information the Biodiversity Officer is satisfied that the application has provided sufficient information with respect to the three test of the Habitats Directive. In addition it is considered that the Survey also suggests adequate mitigation measure for any potential impacts on bats. The Biodiversity Officer therefore raises no objection subject to a condition securing mitigation measures.
As the site is located adjacent to an SSSI the Biodiversity Officer suggests a condition preventing the storage of construction materials in the SSSI if this application is otherwise approved. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy E7 of the Local Plan and PPS 9 as such no objection is raised in this respect.
Impact on Neighbouring Amenities
The proposed development would be sufficient distance away from any nearby neighbours not to result in an adverse impact to amenities in terms of overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impact. No objection is therefore raised in this respect.
Impact on the Highway Network
The Highway Officer notes that the proposal would not result in additional bedrooms and as such the parking provision would remain constant. However the Highway Officer has concerns that the application does not demonstrate the provision of cycle parking as required by the Council's Residential Parking Standards 2008. However given that the number of bedrooms would remain constant and sufficient cycle parking space / storage could be provided within the site, it is not considered reasonable to pursue this requirement. No objection is therefore raised in this respect.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is RECOMMENDED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The proposed two storey rear extension by virtue of its incongruous and overall design, scale, bulk and depth would fail to respect the proportions and roof form of the host dwelling. In addition the proposed front porch given its incongruous design, height and overall size would detract from the simple character and design of the host dwelling. The proposed development would therefore fail to respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy E1 (i) of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 1996-2011 and Appendix 13 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 'Extending Your Home and Replacement Dwellings'.
52 of 70 Minor and Other Application
Cttee: 28/07/2010 Item No. 04
Application no: BDB/72524 For Details and Plans Click here
Site Address Sunny View, Chapel Lane, Ashford Hill, Thatcham, RG19 8BE Proposal Erection of a two storey extension to south elevation following demolition of porch
Registered: 13/05/2010 Expiry Date: 08/07/2010 Type of Householder Case Officer: Robert Steele Application: Permission 01256 845468 Applicant: Mr J Beale Agent: Lawrence Nardi Ltd Ward: Kingsclere Ward Member(s): Cllr Mrs F C Osselton Cllr K Rhatigan* Parish: Ashford Hill with OS Grid Reference: 455533,162230 Headley
Recommendation: Refuse
General Comments
This application has been brought to the Development Committee at the request of Cllr Rhatigan, for the following reasons:
'I would like the Committee to consider, in light of the Officer’s report, whether the bulk, scale and mass of the proposed extension will be detrimental to the character of the host building and whether the replication of the design of the extension to the lounge area does not lead to enhancement.
I would also like the Committee to consider whether the improved land use of the site is beneficial to the application rather than causing a harmful impact on the host dwelling as well as the loss of character to this application.
Because of the landscaping issues and the requirement to see previous extensions I would also ask that a viewing is an essential for the Committee to consider this application.' The request is supported by Cllr Osselton.
Description of Site
The site is located along Chapel Lane off the B3051 classified road. The property is a two storey brick and tiled dwelling with a gabled two storey element which is painted white. The property has previously been extended to its rear at a two storey and single storey level in the past. The site is surrounded by a recreation ground and there is a Public Right Off Way running adjacent to the site to the west. The property is situated within a large plot and two detached garages are located to the north east of the dwelling. Boundary treatment at the site consists predominately of hedging however the main entrance of the site is formed of a brick and flint wall and gate. 53 of 70 Proposal
The proposal is for the erection of a two storey extension to the southern elevation of the dwelling. This extension would measure 7.9m in width, 4.1m in depth and 6.4m in height.
Relevant Planning History
BDB 29248 Erection of one dwelling Refused 01/08/90 BDB 31941 Extensions and alterations and new double garage. Granted 06/09/91 BDB 39705 Retention of boundary wall Granted 04/07/96 BDB 43466 Erection of single storey rear extension and Granted conservatory and replacement store. 24/07/98
Consultations
Parish Council: No objection subject to condition:
'The Parish Council would like to add a condition to the planning permission. As Chapel Lane is an unadopted road and not in a good state of repair, it is imperative that if the appointed contractor causes damage to the surface of the road or bordering banks and verges, the property owner / applicant is financially responsible for remedying any such damage.'
Public Observations: None.
Planning Policy and Material Considerations
The site is located outside any recognised Settlement Policy Boundary and as such lies within the Countryside. The proposal must therefore be assessed against the relevant Government guidance, countryside, design and amenity policies of the adopted Local Plan and supplementary documents.
Government Guidance
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS 1) states that good design ensures attractive, usable, durable and adaptable places and is a key element in achieving sustainable development. Good design is indivisible from good planning.
Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS 7) at para 1(vi) states that all development in rural areas should be well designed and inclusive, in keeping and scale with its location, and sensitive to the character of the countryside and local distinctiveness.
Local Plan
Policy E1 states that all proposals for new development will be permitted provided that they are of a high standard of design, make efficient use of the land, respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and do not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. Policy E1(i) states that development proposals should therefore respond to the local context of buildings in terms of design, siting, density and 54 of 70 spacing, reinforce the attractive qualities of local distinctiveness and enhance areas of poor design; extensions should respect their host dwelling.
Policy E6 states that planning permission will only be granted where it is demonstrated that the proposal will be sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of the area concerned.
Policy A1 states that parking for new development proposals will be flexibly assessed, dependant on individual circumstances, using as a basis the car and other parking standards set out in the council’s Parking Strategy.
Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD's)
The Basingstoke and Deane's Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2008 is relevant to this application. Of particular relevance are:
Appendix 13: 'Extending your Home and Replacement Dwellings' contains advice to ensure a high standard of design stating that the basic form and size of extensions should be subservient to the original dwelling. The document states that the size and scale (width, depth and height) of an extension is critical in determining whether development will remain in proportion to the building. Extensions which are overly large in size and scale and are disproportionate in relation to the original dwelling will not be favoured by the Local Planning Authority. The document also seeks extensions that are designed in relation to the context of the area and street scene. The surrounding building styles, gaps between buildings, and the established pattern of development should be considered in the design of any extension.
Appendix 14: Countryside Design Summary of the above document is also relevant. This explains the relationship between the landscape, settlement patterns and buildings, specific to designated landscape character areas in the Borough.
Supplementary Planning Document ‘Residential Parking Standards’ (2008).
Impact on the Character of the Host Dwelling and Area
The original part of the host dwelling has white painted brick walls, a tiled roof and black framed windows and detailing. The original dwelling has been significantly extended to its rear at two storey and single storey height.
The red brick materials of the rear extensions are in contrast to the white painted finish of the original dwelling. These existing extensions are also of a considerable size in comparison to the original dwelling and already compromise the original house to a certain degree. However, whilst the rear extensions are large and dominant, the scale and form of the original cottage is still clearly distinguishable when the site is viewed from the south and somewhat from the east of Chapel Lane. Furthermore it should be noted that these extensions in no way set a precedent for further harm to the dwelling particularly given that they were approved under BDB 31941 in 1991 and BDB 43466 in 1999 under a less design focused planning policy framework.
The proposal is for the construction of a two storey extension to the front /southern elevation of the property. This would add to the overall mass of the dwelling and would provide two additional bedrooms at first floor and extend the existing lounge and dining room on the ground floor. The extension would mirror the gabled roof of the original dwelling thus creating two ridge peaks with a central trough and matching the width and 55 of 70 height of the original dwelling. By virtue of this design, siting, size, scale and bulk the proposal would compete with the original part of the dwellinghouse and would appear as a dominant addition to its presently unaltered front. As such, the extension would fail to appear subservient to the host dwelling to the detriment of the appearance and character of the host dwelling.
Whilst the extension would not extend along the entire width of the southern elevation it would involve the loss of the existing porch and substantial elevational detail which historically would have been the front /principal elevation of the property fronting Chapel Lane. The proposal would result in the loss of the cottage style of the southern elevation of the dwelling which is visible, distinguishable and prominent within Chapel Lane, despite the existence of the large extensions to its rear. It is therefore considered that the proposed extension would be detrimental to the character of the host dwelling and street scene. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy E1 of the Local Plan and the council's guidance within Appendix 13 'Extending your Home and Replacement Dwellings' and is unacceptable in this regard.
The proposed development, whilst on the edge of the settlement would be set with the backdrop of surrounding development within the Chapel Lane and Ashford Hill area. As such in this regard it is not considered that it would result in a harmful impact on the character of the wider countryside. No objection is therefore raised in this respect.
Impact on neighbouring amenities
The nearest neighbour to the application site is Fairview which is located 6m away to the south east of the host dwelling.
The proposed extension would extend south along side of Fairview and a first floor window facing this property is proposed in the extension. However due to the position of these properties there would be no direct overlooking as any overlooking from the window would be at an oblique angle. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not result in harmful overlooking over and above the existing neighbouring relationship. As such no objection is raised in this respect.
In addition it is considered the proposal would be of a sufficient distance away not to result in a harmful level of overshadowing or overbearing impact towards Fairview.
Impact on the highway network
The application property has two detached double garages and an extensive area of hardstanding. As such sufficient parking provision exists on site for the proposed scheme. No objection is therefore raised in this respect.
Other Matters
The Parish Council requested that if this application is approved a condition should be attached to ensure that any damage caused to the unadopted highway by construction vehicles should be repaired by the applicant. This matter is outside the remit of planning control as any damage to the highway by such means would be a civil matter.
56 of 70 RECOMMENDATION:
It is RECOMMENDED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The proposed two storey extension would, as a result of its design, scale, depth and siting, fail to appear subservient towards the host dwelling and would not preserve the original form of the dwelling. As a result the proposal would not respect the character or appearance of the existing dwelling and would appear unduly prominent to the detriment of the character of the street scene. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy E1 (i) of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 1996-2011, Appendix 13 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 'Extending Your Home and Replacement Dwellings' and Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development.
57 of 70 Minor and Other Application
Cttee: 28/07/2010 Item No. 05
Application no: BDB/72549 For Details and Plans Click here
Site Address The Railway Inn, Station Road, Whitchurch, RG28 7ER Proposal Construction of temporary 49 no. space car park with associated works (retrospective)
Registered: 17/05/2010 Expiry Date: 12/07/2010 Type of Retention of Case Officer: Claire Cook Application: Development 01256 845444 (Section 73A) Applicant: Lochailort Agent: The JTS Partnership Investments Ltd Ward: Whitchurch Ward Member(s): Cllr E Dunlop Cllr K Watts Parish: Whitchurch OS Grid Reference: 446337,148870
Recommendation: Approve
General Comments
Relevant Planning History
BDB 71866 Demolition of public house Raise No Objection 19/02/10
BDB 72095 Construction of a temporary 53 no. space car park Withdrawn with associated works 14/04/10
Consultations
Whitchurch Town Council: No objection.
Local Highway Authority: (Additional comments) No objection subject to conditions.
The proposed one way system addresses previous concerns. Notwithstanding this, additional measures to ensure the one way system is adhered to and is self enforcing are required. These measures typically include traffic flow control plates or equivalent, together with appropriate signs, additional fencing, etc which can be controlled via condition.
Details of pedal store and motorcycle/scooter secure parking facilities need to be provided and can be controlled via condition.
58 of 70 With respect to the proposed internal layout, access to a number of the parking spaces is restrictive (e.g. bays 1, 14-15, 47-48, etc), however, these spaces are remote from the public highway.
Initial comments The applicants traffic survey results accord with a previous automatic traffic survey undertaken near this site which recorded a weekday average of 1913 vehicle per day along Evingar/Station Road. This link is also a bus route and it used by commercial vehicles associated with nearby industrial estate.
The application site has historically been served by two vehicular accesses with a southern access from Station Road and a northern access close to the Whitchurch Railway Station. Visibility from the southern access is significantly reduced by the close proximity of the adjacent building (No. 32) to the east. The new chain link fence also reduces visibility to the west and should be set back. In practice, the available visibility to the east is further restricted by the adjacent on-street parking bays.
Given the busy nature of Evingar/Station Road, the close proximity of the southern access to the junction with Greenwoods, the sharp bend to the west and that visibility upon exit is restricted, particularly to the east due to the adjacent building and the adjacent on-street parking bays, it is considered that the use of the southern access is not appropriate to serve as an exit for this development proposal. An objection is therefore raised.
Transport Strategy: No objection.
No objection in principal as the provision of appropriate levels of parking at rail stations within the Borough forms part of the Basingstoke and Deane draft strategic approach to parking action plan.
A large proportion of journeys associated with commuter rail travel tend to occur during the early part of the morning peak and the current car park at the station has already been identified as being oversubscribed during the working week causing problems in the surrounding area. On street controls have been introduced to mitigate this problem therefore the introduction of this facility will help to alleviate any issues the displaced parkers may have with this scheme. However there is concern surrounding the question of where this capacity will be re-absorbed when the temporary car park is converted to residential use as identified in the supporting documentation, this would not be an issue if the proposal was for a permanent rather than temporary facility. In terms of overall parking provision, the proposed change of use at Whitchurch primarily focuses on those car users who use their car for only one part of their journey therefore the opportunity for other users will be restricted to weekend use.
Whilst the opportunity to undertake longer-distance commuter travel by rail is generally supported because of the role it has to play in reducing longer journeys by car this also has local impacts. For example, journeys by car can have an influence on the capacity of the local road network and its operation, and it needs to be demonstrated that the volume of traffic to this location will not be detrimental particularly in the morning peak, the overall impact would be best illustrated through a trip generation report detailing peaks and troughs on predicted usage bearing in mind that recent surveys of commuter car parks has identified that each space can be used (on average) twice in a 24hr period.
Policy: No objection.
59 of 70 Proposed development complies with Policy C8 given the number and location of public houses in the village.
Trees: No objection subject to conditions.
The proposed tree species of Turkish hazel is considered to be acceptable. Details of the size of the trees to be planted, details of the size (volume) of the tree pits, soil, provisions for supporting any surfacing over the tree pits, drainage and irrigation need to be provided and can be controlled via condition. Provision for the aftercare of the trees would also need to be controlled via condition.
Network Rail: No objection.
'Network Rail does not object in principle against the application; however the addition of this car park, though temporary, does not benefit the railway'.
The development allows elderly and disabled people to park near the station. The proposal makes good use of what would otherwise be empty space.
1 Letter of comment received raising the following point:
More parking provision is needed but there is a question as to where will cars park when the car park closes.
The application site is located within the Settlement Policy Boundary of Whitchurch. The principle of development is acceptable providing that the proposal would meet the relevant Government Guidance and the relevant design, community facility, highway and amenity polices contained within the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the associated Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance.
Temporary Car Park/ Sustainability
However, in order to ensure that those using the car park are informed prior to the closure of the car park to allow alternative arrangements to be made, it is considered reasonable to attach a condition for details of signs to be submitted which would be displayed within the car park 1 month prior to its closer to inform users that the car park is due to close. This would be incorporated into a more comprehensive condition regarding the restoration of the site following the expiry of the temporary consent.
The applicant proposes a temporary permission for the site so that further options for the site can be considered until the economic climate improves. Given this request and that there is an allocated site to the north of the Railway station, which is still proposed, a temporary permission of two years is considered appropriate and reasonable. Given that the northern site is unlikely to be realised in the next two years this would also mean that the two car parks would not be open simultaneously and an over provision would not occur. A temporary two year consent would therefore not detrimentally impact the future of the site to the north of the Railway station.
Concern has been raised that the car park would cause increased congestion on the surrounding road network. It is most likely that the proposed car park will be used for long- stay parking and that the turnover of the parking spaces will be low. In addition it is likely that rail commuters would enter and leave the car park before and after the morning and evening peak periods on the adjacent highway network. The new car park could also
60 of 70 potentially alleviate congestion by being used by rail users who were previously being dropped off and picked up in the absence of a parking facility (which would have generated a greater number of vehicle movements). Taking into the above and the previous use of the site as a public house it is considered that the car park would not result in a level of congestion which would be harmful to the surrounding road network.
Furthermore, due to the temporary nature of the use and when balanced against the previous use of the site, the proposal is not considered to trigger the need for contributions towards Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport (BEST) for the local highway network.
Highways/Parking
Other matters
Reasons for Approval:
1. The car park would not provide an over provision of car parking and as such the proposal complies with Policy A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 2. There is adequate alternative provision of public houses within the local area and therefore the proposed development accords with Policy C8 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 3. The development would not cause any harm to the visual amenity of the area and as such accords with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011. 4. The development would not have a detrimental impact on highways safety and as such complies with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 5. The proposed development would not result in an undue noise, disturbance or loss of privacy to neighbouring amenities and as such complies with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is RECOMMENDED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:
Drawing No. JTS/7036/01A received 17 May 2010 Drawing No. CS/043780/SK-002 received 17 May 2010 Drawing No. S/11 Rev R received 6 July 2010 Site survey received 17 May 2010
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
61 of 70 2. The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued by the 30th July 2013 and the land restored to a condition to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The land shall then be restored to the condition agreed within 3 months. REASON: To enable the Local Planning Authority to re-assess the situation as this application is being granted as a trial-run to allow the Local Planning Authority and the applicant to reconsider the implications of the permitted use and the nearby allocated site, in accordance with Policies E1 and D3.20 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
3. Within 28 days of the decision date details of how the vehicle parking spaces will be constructed, surfaced and marked out shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These areas shall be implemented within 28 days of the Local Planning Authorities approval of these details and shall thereafter not be used for any purpose other than parking, turning, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies E1 and A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
4. The development hereby permitted shall be operated only in accordance with the vehicular ingress and egress as indicated by the ‘IN’ and ‘OUT’ annotations shown by drawing number S/11 Rev. Q. The ingress and egress shall thereafter be retained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
5. Within 28 days of the approval details of a comprehensive scheme to control the ingress and egress, (as indicated by the ‘IN’ and 'OUT' annotation on drawing number S/11 Rev. Q), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be constructed and fully implemented within 28 days of being approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
6. Within 28 days of the decision date detailed drawings of the proposed pedal and motorcycle parking facilities shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, such drawings to show the position, design, materials and finishes thereof. The approved details shall be fully implemented within 28 days of being approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To improve provision for cyclists and discourage the use of the car wherever possible and in accordance with Policy A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
7. Within 28 days of the approval hereby granted, details of a adequate drainage measures to prevent surface water run-off onto the adjacent public highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be installed and maintained within 28 days of being approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter maintained. REASON: In the interests of highways safety and to prevent water on the highway and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011.
62 of 70 8. Within 28 days of the approval hereby granted, details of the proposed specimen tree planting in the locations shown on Cutler Architects ‘Proposed Site Plan’ drawing 682.09.1 S/11Q which shall specify species, planting sizes and tree pit details (to include volume and planting medium) and schedule of maintenance shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out within 28 days of being approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any tree which, within a period of 2 years from the date of planting, dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another tree of similar size and species unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policies E1 (ii) and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
Notes to the Applicant:
1. 1.1 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.
1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre-commencement conditions have been met.
1.3 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £85 per request or £25 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.
2. The applicant is advised that a separate application for advertisement consent is required for the signs that have been displayed on the site.
63 of 70 Minor and Other Application
Cttee: 28/07/2010 Item No. 06
Application no: BDB/72683 For Details and Plans Click here
Site Address 20-22 London Street, Basingstoke, RG21 7NY Proposal Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission BDB/69357 to allow change of opening hours to Sunday 08:00 - 02:00, Monday to Thursday 08:00 - 02:00 and Friday to Saturday 08:00 - 03:00.
Registered: 07/06/2010 Expiry Date: 02/08/2010 Type of Removal/Variation Case Officer: Gemma Page Application: of Condition (Sec 01256 845314 73) Applicant: Mr & Mrs Freeman Agent: Ward: Eastrop Ward Member(s): Cllr G James Cllr S Parker
Parish: OS Grid Reference: 463919,151882
Recommendation: Approve
General Comments
The application has been brought before the Development Committee at the request of Councillor Parker for the following reasons:
'My concerns are specifically in regard to the extension of the opening time for Friday and Saturday by ONE hour from 2-00am to 3-00am. This could create the potential for an increase in the anti social behaviour and noise nuisance beyond 3-00am on a Saturday and Sunday morning ( the weekend ) for the residents living in the immediate vicinity of the Bar ie. The Alms Houses London Road; Anchor Court London Road and Pages Cottages New Road. Residents in the nearby streets could also experience a reduction in the enjoyment of their homes, caused by rowdy behaviour as patrons walk home when leaving the Bar at this time in the morning'.
Councillor James supports Councillor Parker's request and adds the following comments:
'It is critical in terms of protecting the public from harm, that the closing times of the venues are staggered to allow the Police to manage the exit of patrons.
It must not be forgotten the importance of the daytime economy and the clean up that is required between the bars closing and retailers and places of worship opening the morning after. Without a clear window between the economies, cleaning up the streets is impossible. Rubbish in the streets is a public nuisance we have, as a licensing authority, a duty to manage.
It should also be mentioned that the Borough's licensing policy is subject for review over the next 6 months, I am not sure whether any changes to this policy can supersede existing conditions. If so the applicant may wish to withdraw until such time as a new policy in place'. 64 of 70 Description of Site
The site related to an existing food and drink Class A3/A4 premises (called 'Tonic'), located hard up against the pedestrianised thoroughfare known as 'Top of the Town'. The building is a traditionally constructed three storey building to front, cream stuccoed with a tiled roof and sash windows, although it is two storey to the rear. The building is located on the corner of London Street with May Place.
There are a mixture of uses within the surrounding area, although A3 (restaurants and cafe) and A4 (drinking establishments) uses are more predominant. Tables and chairs (with approval) are being displayed outside the front of the premises.
Proposal
Variation of condition 1 of planning permission BDB 69357 to allow an extension of the existing opening hours. The current opening hours are;
08:00 - 02:00 Monday to Saturday 12:00 - 02:00 Sundays
The applicant proposes to extend these hours to:
08:00 - 02:00 Monday to Thursday 08:00 - 03:00 Friday and Saturday 08:00 - 02:00 Sunday
It should be noted that the application type has been amended since its initial submission from relief of condition to variation of condition as it was registered in error.
Relevant Planning History
BDB 40368 Use as wine lodge, extension, alterations and Granted shopfront. Change of use to licensed premises with 17/12/96 food facilities (Class A3), erection of two storey rear extension, internal alterations and installation of new shopfront BDB 48373 Vary Condition No.8 relating to opening hours of Granted planning permission BDB 40368 16/08/00 BDB 69357 Removal of condition 1 of planning permission Granted BDB 48373 relating to the opening hours 06/10/08
Consultations
Conservation Officer: No Objection
'It is not considered that this extension to operating hours will have a detrimental impact on the character including activities in this area of Basingstoke Town Conservation Area'.
Environmental Health: No Objection
'I can confirm that Environmental Health do not object to the granting of planning permission'.
65 of 70 Public Observations
One letter raising the following concern:
'Basingstoke does not need late opening bars - and the cost of public cleaning and policing'
Planning Policy and Material Consideration
Principle
The property is located within Basingstoke Town Settlement Policy Boundary and the Basingstoke Town Conservation Area wherein the principle of development is acceptable providing that the proposal would meet the relevant polices contained within the adopted Local Plan as well as national planning policy and other supplementary planning guidance/documents.
National Guidance
Planning Policy Statement 4 'Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth' (PPS4) seeks to promote the vitality and viability of town and other centres as important places for communities.
Planning Policy Statement 5: 'Planning for the Historic Environment' (PPS5) is also a material planning consideration.
Planning Policy Guidance 24: 'Planning and Noise' (PPG24) provides advice on how the planning system can be used to minimise the adverse impact of noise.
Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 1996 - 2011
Policy E1 states that all proposals for new development will be permitted provided that they respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and do create noise which harms living and working conditions or the publics enjoyment of the built and natural environment.
Policy E3 states that development within a Conservation Area, or on sites outside where development would affect the setting of a Conservation Area, will be permitted provided that the proposals preserve and enhance their special character or appearance.
Policy EC10 states that within town, district and local centres of the Borough, proposals for A3 Restaurants and Cafes, A4 Drinking Establishments and A5 Hot Food Take away uses will be permitted, provided that they do not, individually or cumulatively with recently permitted or development schemes, undermine the vitality or viability of the centre or give rise to unacceptable environmental or public safety problems.
Supplementary Planning Documents
Appendix 4 of Basingstoke and Deane's Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document: 'The Historic Environment - Conservation Areas', states at paragraph 3.1 that any development proposals in a Conservation Area will be judged on their effect on the character and appearance of the area as identified in the Conservation Area Appraisal.
66 of 70 Other Material Considerations
Also of relevance is the Basingstoke Town Conservation Area Appraisal. The appraisal identifies key buildings which have been designed to enhance the existing street scape and contribute significantly to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The premises is highlighted within the Conservation Area Appraisal as a `Notable Building`.
The 'Top of the Town - Framework For Action' Strategy (2002) aims to sustain economic viability at the Top of Town by promoting changes which should aim to support existing businesses.
Site History
Planning permission for the use of the site as a Class A3 use (now A4 due to the change in the Use Class Order) was approved in 1996 under BDB 40368. A condition (condition number 8) was imposed restricting the operating hours of the business from 10:00 - 23:00 Monday to Sunday and 10:00 - 23:00 on Sundays.
Planning permission BDB 48373 sought to vary this condition by extending the operating hours to 10:00 - 00:30 Mondays to Saturdays and 10:00 to 23:00 Sundays and was approved in 1998.
In 2008 planning application BDB 69357 was sought to remove the operating hours restricted by condition 1 of BDB 48373. This would essentially allow the operator to determine their own hours of operation of the site. Within this application, the Local Planning Authority recognised that the premises was sited within a town centre location, it was also noted that residential properties were sited to the east and south east of the site. It was on this basis that the removal of the condition in planning terms would have been considered unacceptable. However the Local Planning Authority raised no issue with extending the operating hours in accordance with the Public Entertainment Licence legislation (which has since been superseded by the 2003 Licensing Act) to 08:00 - 02:00 Monday to Saturday 12:00 - 02:00 Sundays. This application was conditioned accordingly.
Surrounding Area History
There have been numerous applications submitted to the Local Planning Authority from businesses falling within Use Classes A3, A4 and A5 along London Street with regard to extending their opening hours. These are as follows:
12 London Street (Mango Grove) is conditioned under BDB 67297 to open between the hours of 12:00 - 00:00 Monday to Sunday;
18 London Street (Sanctuary) is conditioned under BDB 72023 to open between the hours of 11:00 - 02:00 Monday to Saturday and 11:00 - 00:00 on Sundays;
19a London Street (Tuli Tandoori) is conditioned under BDB 53478 to open between the hours of 08:00 - 23:30 Monday to Thursday, 08:00 - 02:00 Friday and Saturday and 08:00 - 00:00 on Sundays;
19 - 13 London Street (Karma) is conditioned under BDB 53383 to open between the hours of 10:00 - 00:30 Monday to Thursday, 10:00 - 02:00 Friday and Saturday and 10:00 - 00:00 on Sundays;
67 of 70 23 London Street (Basingstoke Tandoori) is conditioned under BDB 67297 to open between the hours of 10:00 - 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 10:00 - 23:00 on Sundays;
25 London Street (Lime Leaf) is conditioned under BDB 41352 to open between the hours of 10:00 - 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 10:00 - 23:00 on Sundays.
The purpose of these restrictive conditions is to protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. Whilst the majority of the properties within London Street form A3, A4 and A5 premises, there are residential properties located towards the east end of London Street. These residential properties comprise 8 no. Almshouses and 16 no. flats at Anchor Court. The site is located 25m from the Anchor Court flats and 40m from the Almshouses.
Further to the north east of the site lie residential terraces, located along New Road and approximately 80m from the site. To the east, beyond the existing highway, lies a small row of terrace properties known as 'Pages Cottages', which are located approximately 85m from the site.
There are also however, businesses within the vicinity that enjoy the benefit of unrestricted operating hours in planning terms, such as 1-3 London Street (Zizzi), 17 London Street (Hees) 21 London Street (RhuBar) and the Red Lion Hotel, to which the Local Planning Authority has no control over, although they are subject to separate licensing laws and the terms of their licence.
Neighbouring Amenities
By comparison to the existing situation and the hours conditioned under BDB 53383, the proposed opening hours would result in the premises operating four hours earlier on Sunday and one hour longer on Friday and Saturday.
The extended hours proposed on Fridays and Saturdays (until 03:00) are above and beyond those hours conditioned by the Local Planning Authority on other premises within London Street. Historically, the Local Planning Authority has not granted permission for operating hours beyond 02:00 in this locality. The proposal would allow the site an additional hour of operating time which, if considered acceptable, may set a precedent for other premises within London Street to apply for the same opening hours.
Notwithstanding the above, it should be taken into consideration that there are premises within London Street that have no planning restrictions over operational hours (as referred to earlier) and furthermore, two of these premises, RhuBar and Red Lion Hotel are at a closer proximity to the residential properties at Anchor Court and the Almshouses than the site. Although these premises have not had their hours of operation hours restricted by planning legislation, as outlined under the site history section of this report, the opening hours are restricted under licensing legislation. The RhuBar's operation hours are restricted by the licensing legislation from Sunday to Wednesday 10:00 - 02:00, Thursday 10:00 - 03:00 and Friday and Saturday 10:00 - 04:00.
Therefore, it should be noted that the proposed extended operating hours of the application site would be similar to the licensed operating hours of other premises along London Street, rather than in isolation. Whilst it is acknowledged that there would be some additional noise and disturbance as a result of an additional premises opening later, it is considered that these impacts would not be significantly worse that already experienced by the late night licensed premises. Therefore the proposal in this instance is not considered to be significantly harmful to the amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent residential properties, to warrant a refusal of the application. 68 of 70
With regard to the proposed Sunday opening hours, the applicant proposes to operate from 08:00, as the applicant wishes to provide a cafe style service. Whilst it is acknowledged that if this application was granted the site would be open at least 2 hours earlier than the surrounding premises that have been conditioned by the Local Planning Authority, it is unlikely that the site would generate noise or disturbance to an extent that would significantly harm the amenities of the surrounding area. Furthermore, it should be noted that the premises within London Street without restrictions on their operational hours would also be able to open at this time should they so wish.
Overall, it is considered that any additional noise and disturbance as a result of the additional operating hours at the site would not be above and beyond the levels currently existing within the surrounding area, given that the site is within a town centre location where a number of A3, A4 and A5 uses currently operate. The Environmental Health Officer raises no objection to the proposal.
It should also be noted that other legislation exists to deal with issues with regard to noise and disturbance created by any existing business within London Street and any instances of such should be reported to the Environmental Health Department for further investigation.
Other Matters
The Conservation Officer has raised no objection to the proposal, as the extension to the existing operating hours will not have a detrimental impact on the character or activities in this area of Basingstoke Town Conservation Area.
In response to the Councillors comments regarding anti-social behaviour and town centre management with regard to the staggering of departing hours from A4 premises at the top of town, the proposal would create a stagger from the existing 02:00 closing hours of the majority of premises within this location. The policing of the town centre is a matter outside of planning control and is covered by existing legislation.
With regard to the Councillors comments about the Licensing Review and existing planning conditions on site, the Boroughs Licensing Policy Review is not a material planning consideration and can therefore not be taken into account in assessing this current application. However, given that Licensing Policy and Planning Policy are separate legislation, it is unlikely that a change in Licensing Policy would have an affect on planning controls currently implemented on the premises in this location.
Recommendation
In light of the above, this application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.
Reasons for Approval:
1. The proposed development would not result in an undue level of noise and disturbance above and beyond what is currently experienced within the surrounding area and as such the proposal complies with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 2. The proposal would not undermine the vitality and viability of the Basingstoke Town Centre nor result in unacceptable environmental or public safety problems. As such the proposal complies with Policy EC10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local 69 of 70 Plan 1996-2011 and guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 4: 'Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth'. 3. The proposed development would preserve the character of the Conservation Area and as such complies with adopted policies in particular Policy E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is RECOMMENDED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:
Site Layout Plan @ 1:500 received 07 June 2010
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
2. The premises shall not open before 08:00 hours or remain open after 02:00 hours on Sundays to Thursdays, and 08:00 to 03:00 hours on Fridays and Saturdays, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
Notes to the Applicant:
1. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.
70 of 70