Item No.: 04 The information, recommendations and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.

PROPOSAL Two storey side and rear extension, single storey front and side extension LOCATION: Hartley, Headley Lane, Passfield, , GU30 7RN REFERENCE 38102/007 PARISH: /Liphook APPLICANT: Mr Land CONSULTATION 27 April 2016 EXPIRY : APPLICATION EXPIRY : COUNCILLOR(S): Cllr A Glass, Cllr B Mouland, Cllr R Standish SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

This application has been included on the agenda at the request of Councillors Glass, Mouland and Standish as concerns have been raised over the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape, contrary to Policy CP29, and also contrary to Policy H16.

Site and Development

Hartley is a two storey detached dwelling with a detached garage to the side/rear on the western side of Headley Lane, Passfield. The property is set back from the public highway and provides more than four off-road car parking spaces. The surrounding area is semi- rural in character. The properties within the surrounding area vary in development styles and build lines, some of which are listed. The site abuts agricultural land to the south and west and lies outside any settlement policy boundary.

This application seeks permission for a two storey side and rear extension and single storey extensions to the front and side of the dwelling. The two storey side extension would measure 5 metres wide and 8.3 metres deep with a hipped roof to match the existing. The extension would also infill a 1.2 metre deep element to the rear to bring the building line level. The single storey rear extension would measure 2.1 metres wide and 1.3 metres deep with a mono pitch roof to a height of 3.3 metres. The single storey side extension would measure 1 metre wide and 3.4 metres deep with a ridge height of 3.1 metres. A porch to the front is also proposed measuring 2.7 metres wide and 1.5 metres deep. It would feature a pitched roof with a ridge height of 3.8 metres. Relevant Planning History

38102 - Detached annexe building. Refused 2004 38102/001 - Two storey extension to side and rear and entrance porch to front (amended plans received 03.06.2013) - Permission (2013) 38102/002 - 3 Bay garage with storage above. Corrected site address. Permission 2014 38102/003 - Remove row of conifers. Formal consent is no longer required. 2015 38102/004 - Prior notification for single storey development extending 8 metres beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling, incorporating an eaves height of 2.7 metres and a maximum height of 3.5 metres. Withdrawn 2015 38102/005 - Lawful development certificate for a proposed development - single storey side extension. Permitted 2015 38102/006 - Prior notification for single storey development extending 8 metres beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling, incorporating an eaves height of 2.7 metres and a maximum height of 3.5 metres. Permitted 2016

Development Plan Policies and Proposals

East District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014)

CP1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development CP19 - Development in the countryside CP21 - Biodiversity CP27 - Pollution CP29 - Design CP31 - Transport

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (2006)

HE2 - Alterations and Extensions to Buildings H16 - Maintaining a Range of Dwelling Sizes outside Settlement Policy Boundaries C6 - Tree Preservation HE12 - Development affecting the setting of a Listed Building

Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) In this instance the following sections of the NPPF are considered to be particularly relevant to the consideration of the development;

Section 4 – Promoting sustainable transport.

Section 7 – Requiring good design.

Section 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Consultations and Parish Council comments

Arboricultural Officer - No objection, subject to informative. County Ecologist - No objection.

Headley Parish Council - No objection, but consider that Policy H16 should be amended as soon as possible.

Representations

5 letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:

a) out of keeping with the surrounding area; b) out of keeping with the existing host property; c) planting to screen the proposal should be imposed as a condition should application be approved; d) neighbours were not correctly notified; e) number of windows appear excessive and would overlook neighbouring properties; loss of privacy; f) impact upon neighbouring properties - noise and visual; g) contrary to Policy H16; too large; h) light pollution; and i) impact upon wildlife and biodiversity.

Determining Issues

1. Principle of development and implications of Policy H16 2. Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties 3. Impact on the character of the area and host property 4. Highway implications 5. Tree implications 6. Ecological implications 7. Other considerations

Planning Considerations

1. Principle of development and implications of Policy H16

The site is outside of any Settlement Policy Boundaries where Local Plan Policy CP19 applies. Policy CP19 adopts a policy of general restraint on development in order to protect the countryside for its own sake. Development is only permitted where there is a genuine and proven need for a countryside location.

In this case the proposal is required in connection with the use of a residential property in the countryside. As such a countryside location is required. Subject to detailed consideration of the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural landscape, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in principle. The application site lies within an area of open countryside where Policy H16 of the District Local Plan: Second Review applies. To accord with this policy, extensions to dwellings in the countryside must not increase the size of the original dwelling for properties of this size, by more than 50%. The aim of this policy is to ensure that the character and type of dwelling stock in the countryside is maintained. The original floor area is deemed to be the floor area that existed on the site on 1st April 1974. The floorspace calculations are as follows:

Original floor area: 117.05 sq metres Additional floor area proposed: 105.59 sq metres Total floor area of dwelling as extended: 222.64 sq metres

The proposal represents a 90% increase, contrary to Policy H16. Under Policy H16 the total additional floor area permissible is 58.525 sq metres and, therefore, the proposal exceeds the limit by 47.065 sq metres.

Under application 26719/006, prior notification was approved for two 8 metre rear extensions. The extensions equated to a floor area of 68.11 sq metres. However, only the floor area which is not duplicated by the extension proposed under this application would be allowed as a "one for one trade off" with the PD fall back position and this equates to 61.56 sq metres. The total floor area permissible, therefore, equates to 237.135 sq metres.

The approved extensions could be realistically built out and thus acceptable as a fallback position. Therefore, whilst the proposal is contrary to Policy H16, it would be justified by the property's PD fallback position and the principle of development is thus established under Policy H16.

2. Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties

Policy CP27 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy states that development will not be permitted if it would have an unacceptable effect on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties through loss of privacy or through excessive overshadowing.

Paragraph 17 of the NPPF requires, amongst other core principles, that development should provide a good level of amenity for all new and existing occupants of land and buildings.

Concerns have been raised by third parties with regard to overlooking and loss of privacy. In addition, concern has also been expressed with the impact upon neighbouring properties in terms of noise and visual intrusion and note that the number of openings proposed are excessive.

Given the use of the development as an extension to a residential property, it is not considered that the development would result in any significant increase in noise or light pollution. The property is situated on a large plot which is relatively secluded. The closest neighbour is over 40 metres away to the north (Passfield House Farm). The majority of the proposals would be located on the southern elevation and would, therefore, be largely screened by the host property to views from Passfield House Farm.

Quarry Cottage is to the south-east over 50 metres away. It is separated from Hartley by Headley Road. The property was historically screened by mature trees and planting to the sites boundary which have now been removed; the trees were not protect and not in the control of the Local Planning Authority. The extension would, therefore, now be seen from Quarry Cottage. However, whilst the extensions would be visible from Quarry Cottage and the property sits on an elevated position, given the distance between the two properties, it is not considered that any unacceptable overlooking would occur.

It is considered that the proposal would be sufficiently distanced, orientated and designed so as not to have an unacceptable effect on the amenities of the neighbouring properties, in particular to their outlook, privacy or available light and would accord with Policy CP27 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy.

3. Impact on the character of the area and host property

Policy CP29 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy states that all new development will ensure that the layout and design of development contributes to local distinctiveness and sense of place, and is appropriate and sympathetic to its setting in terms of its scale, height, massing and density, and its relationship to adjoining buildings, spaces around buildings and landscape features. Regard should further be taken to ensure that development makes a positive contribution to the overall appearance of the area by the use of good quality materials of appropriate scale, profile, finish, colour and proven weathering ability.

Policy HE2 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review requires alterations and extensions to buildings to take account of the design, scale and character of the original building, its plot size and its setting. The roof form of any extension or alteration should respect the form of the original building.

Policy HE12 states that proposals for development will not be permitted if they would harm the setting of a Listed Building.

Concerns have been raised in regards to the proposal not being in keeping with the existing host property and not being in keeping with the character of the area. Objectors are also concerned with regard to light pollution and its impact upon the surrounding area.

Given the scale and use of the development as a residential property it is not considered that the development would result in any significant light pollution.

The proposed extensions would be readily visible from the public realm. It would result in a noticeable increase in the scale and bulk of the dwelling and would elongate the property. Nevertheless the roof form, ridge height and eaves would be maintained and would not compete with the main dwelling. The site is also large enough to accommodate the extension without appearing cramped. Proposed external materials would match those of the host property with the use of brick to the walls and clay tiling to the roof. Hartley is not a listed building, however, both Passfield House Farm and Quarry Cottage are listed, which stand over 40 metres away and over 50 metres away, respectively. Given the distances between these properties and form of the development as an extension to an existing dwelling, it is not considered that the proposal would impact upon the setting of these listed buildings and would, therefore, accord with Policy H12.

Objectors also request that should the application be approved planting to screen the proposal should be imposed as a condition. The applicant has proposed new hedge screening to the southern boundary, which would assist in screening the site from views from the south. Whilst the screening is not strictly required to mitigate visual impact, since it is being offered as part of the development, it can be secured through a condition.

Taking all of these considerations into account, the scale and bulk of the proposal is considered to be in keeping with the existing property and surrounding listed buildings and would not appear overly dominant in the street scene or wider area in accordance with Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Para 128 and 129 of the NPPF. It would, therefore, accord with Policy CP29, HE2 and HE12 of the Local Plan in so much as it respects the general character of its immediate surroundings.

4. Highway implications

Policy CP31 of the JCS requires that regard is had to any impact on the safety and convenience of the public highway.

The application is for the alteration of a dwelling, which would create an additional bedroom but would not result in the loss of any car parking spaces. There are more than four parking spaces currently available on site. Therefore, the parking provision would remain acceptable for a property of this size.

5. Tree implications

There are a number of trees to the south of the site which are protected by a blanket Tree Preservation Order. The Arboricultural Officer has been consulted and raised no objections. The development would not intrude into the root protection areas of these trees. The application does not propose the removal of any trees on site.

6. Ecological implications

Policy CP21 of the JCS requires development to maintain, enhance and protect the District’s biodiversity and its surrounding environment.

Concern has been raised in regards to the impact of the proposal upon wildlife and biodiversity.

An SSSI lies further to the south of the site but would not be impacted by the development. The County Ecologist has been consulted and raised no objections. The application is accompanied by a Phase 1 & Phase 2 Bat Survey report (Vesper, June 2016) which provides a useful assessment of the application site. The survey concludes that no bats are roosting within the building. The County Ecologist has confirmed that no further survey works are required.

7. Other considerations

Objectors note that the Local Planning Authority failed to notify residents. It is confirmed that neighbours have been notified in accordance with the Development Management Procedure Order.

Conclusion

The principle of development is considered to be acceptable. The proposal is also considered to be acceptable as it would not detract from the character and appearance of the area, would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, would not have any impact on nearby heritage assets, would not have an adverse effect on the safety and function of the highway network and is in compliance with the NPPF and the relevant policies of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy and East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

RECOMMENDATION

PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:

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

2 The external materials to be used shall match, as closely as possible, in type, colour, and texture those of the existing building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason - To ensure that a harmonious visual relationship is achieved between the new and the existing developments.

3 Upon implementation of this permission, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) () Order, 2015 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order) there shall be no additions to or extensions/enlargement of the dwellinghouse to which this application relates without a grant of planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. Reason - The property lies outside of any recognised settlement where the Planning Authority seeks to retain a range of dwellings, and therefore wishes to control any further alterations, extensions or conversion of the roof space. 4 The proposed new hedging to the south of the property shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and SL4.8 Block Plan and in accordance with the recommendations of the appropriate British Standards or other recognised codes of good practice. These works shall be carried out in the first planting season after practical completion, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any hedging or plants which, within a period of 5 years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure the provision and establishment of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs.

5 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars:

Application Form Design, Access and Planning Statement EH/456/IE/101 Site Location Plan SL4.1 Proposed Ground Floor SL4.2 Proposed First Floor SL4.3 Proposed Roof Layout SL4.4 Proposed West Elevation SL4.5 Proposed East Elevation SL4.6 Proposed North Elevation SL4.7 Proposed South Elevation SL4.8 Block Plan Existing Plans and Elevations

Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development

Informative Notes to Applicant:

1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach and works with applicants/agents on development proposals in a manner focused on solutions by:

 offering a pre-application advice service,

 updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,

 by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter. In this instance the application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was required.

2 There must be no dumping, storing or mixing of materials in proximity to the group of protected trees to the south of the house.

CASE OFFICER: Katherine Pang 01730 234191 ——————————————————————————————————————— SECTION 1 Item 04 Hartley, Headley Lane, Passfield, Liphook, GU30 7RN

Proposed block plan SECTION 1 Item 04 Hartley, Headley Lane, Passfield, Liphook, GU30 7RN

Proposed east elevation

Proposed west elevation SECTION 1 Item 04 Hartley, Headley Lane, Passfield, Liphook, GU30 7RN

Proposed north elevation

Proposed south elevation