APPEAL BY: Thomas Homes RE: Lane rear of 12, 14, 16 and 20 Shyshack Lane, Baughurst, Tadley INSPECTORATE REF: APP/H1705/A/09/2102664/NWF LOCAL AUTHORITY REF: BDB/69349 1 BASINGSTOKE AND DEANE BOROUGH COUNCIL SECTION 78 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED) INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: APP/H1705/A/09/2102664/NWF LOCAL AUTHORITY’S REFERENCE: BDB/69349 NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPELLANT Mr Lyzba c/o agent NAME AND ADDRESS OF AGENT Thomas Homes 2 The Long Yard Ermin Street Shefford Woodlands Hungerford RG17 7EH 2 PARTICULARS OF THE APPLICATION Proposal: Erection of 9 no. dwellings (2 no. four bedroom, 4 no. three bedroom and 3 no. two bedroom) following demolition of 20 Shyshack Lane with associated access, landscaping and diversion of public right of way Location: Land rear of 12, 14, 16 and 20 Shyshack Lane, Baughurst, Tadley 3 CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Policy 3.0 Statement of Case 4.0 Other Matters 5.0 Conclusion APPENDICES 1. Committee report (and update sheet) for appeal proposal 2. Suggested Conditions 3. Best Environmental Strategy for Transport 4. Supplementary Planning Guidance Note, 'Section 106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure', July 2004 5. HSE statement in respect of refusal reason Number 1 and consultation correspondence 6. Application ref. BDB/65937 and associated documents 7. Application ref. BDB/66717 and associated documents 8. Application ref. BDB/68516 and associated documents 9. Consultation response from Natural England and the Biodiversity Officer regarding protected species 4 10. Statement from appeal ref. BDB/68516, which is relevant to refusal reason Number 2 11. Email from appellant’s agent in respect of refusal reason Number 2 and submission of Unilateral Undertaking. 12. Circular 04/00 - 'Planning Controls for Hazardous Substances' 13. Appendix 7 of the council’s adopted Design and Sustainability SPD - ‘Places to Live’ September 2008 14. Letter from the Planning Inspectorate dated 15th May 2009 in relation to protected species 15. Plan to show Detailed Emergency Planning Zones 16. Tadley Village Design Statement 17. Application ref. BDB/66882 and associated documents 5 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Inspector’s attention is drawn to Appendix 1 of this document, which contains a full description of the appeal site and proposal; further details of the proposal can be seen at paragraph 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11. 1.2 The Appeal application was refused by the Local Planning Authority in May 2009 for the following reasons: 1. The application site is situated within the (0-3) km Detailed Emergency Planning Zone DEPZ) surrounding the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE). The use of the DEPZ in this context, provides an area for development control consistent with the zone defined originally for emergency planning purposes. The proposed development would further contribute to a long term net positive increase in the extant residential population density within the DEPZ. Such a situation would potentially increase the overall risk to the public in the event of an off-site release of radioactive material following a significant plant fault. Furthermore, the proposed development would adversely impact upon the maintenance of a controlled low population zone around the AWE nuclear facility. A controlled low population zone serves to both mitigate against the consequences of an off-site release, and facilitates emergency preparedness which are key elements of the defence-in-depth philosophy adopted by the nuclear community worldwide. As such the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of Policies E1 and D5 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, advice contained in Planning Policy Statement 6 23: Planning and Pollution Control and within Circular 04/00 - 'Planning Controls for Hazardous Substances'. 2. In the absence of a secure legal agreement to secure a financial contribution, the proposal would result in additional pressures upon open space, play areas/recreation, playing fields, community facilities and the highway (Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport). The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies C1 and C9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance note 'Section 106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure' and the advice contained within Circular 05/2005. 3. The proposed dwellings by virtue of their bulk, size, scale, appearance, layout and form would result in a cramped and confined form of development with limited space between properties, detrimental to and out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Th e proposed bin store area represents a poor design solution given its prominence within the site. Accordingly the proposal would be contrary to Policies E1 (i) and (ii) and E6 Iii) and (iv) of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. 2.0 Policy 2.1 The Statutory Development Plan for the area in which the appeal site is located comprises the South East Plan – May 2009 and the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 (BDBLP). 7 2.2 Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires determinations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan is thus the starting point and it is necessary to assess whether the proposal is in accordance with the relevant policies of the Development Plan. If not, it is necessary to determine whether there are any material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that the development should be approved. Planning Policy Statement 1: ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005) (PPS1) 2.3 Planning Policy Statement 1: ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005) (PPS1) sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. Sustainable development is the core principle underpinning all planning. PPS1 advises at paragraph 27, that in order to deliver sustainable development, planning authorities should seek to, inter alia, “reduce the need to travel… and focus development in existing centres and near to major public transport interchanges” (vii); and “promote the more efficient use of land through higher density, mixed use development and the use of suitably located previously developed land and buildings. Planning should actively seek to bring vacant and underused previously developed land and buildings back into beneficial use…” (viii). Paragraph 23 (vii) also seeks to “ensure the provision of sufficient, good quality new homes (including an appropriate mix of housing and adequate levels of affordable housing) in 8 suitable locations,… to ensure that everybody has the opportunity of a decent home in locations that reduce the need to travel”. 2.4 PPS1 also advocates the importance of good design and states at paragraphs 33 and 34 that “good design ensures attractive, usable, durable and adaptable places and is a key element in achieving sustainable development…Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.” Planning Policy Statement 3, ‘Housing’ (PPS3) 2.5 Paragraphs 12-19 of PPS3 provide guidance in respect of the quality of housing, stating in summary, that development should achieve high standards of design, be well integrated with and complement the surrounding area in terms of scale, density etc. The guidance goes on to state that with imaginative design and layouts, new development can make efficient use of the land without compromising the character of the surrounding area. Circular 05/2005 2.6 Annexe B of Government Circular 05/2005 provides guidance in respect of planning obligations for new development. This guidance states that planning obligations must be; i. relevant to planning 9 ii. necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms iii. directly related to the proposed development iv. fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development v. reasonable in all other respects. Circular 04/00 – Planning controls for Hazardous Substances 2.7 HSE's role in the land use planning system is to provide local authorities with advice on the nature and severity of the risks presented by major hazards to people in the surrounding area so that those risks can be given due weight, when balanced against other relevant planning considerations, in making planning decisions. This role is recognised by the requirement at Article 10 of the General Development Procedure Order (GDPO) for HSE to be consulted on: 1. Proposed development involving the siting of new establishments where hazardous substances may be present; or 2. Modifications to existing establishments which could have significant repercussions on major accident hazards; or 3. Proposed development that is in the vicinity of existing hazardous installations and pipelines where the siting is such as to increase the risk or consequences of a major accident; or 4. Development within an area that has been notified to the local planning authority by the Health and Safety Executive because of the presence of hazardous substances and which involves residential accommodation, or more than 250 square metres of retail floor space, 10 or more than 500 metres of office floor space, or more than 750 metres of floor space to be used for an industrial purpose or which otherwise is likely to result in a material increase in the number of people working within or visiting the notified area. 2.8 Paragraph A5 of Annex A of the above document states that ‘In view of their acknowledged expertise in assessing the off-site risks presented by the use of hazardous substances, any advice from HSE that planning permission should be refused for development for, at or near to a hazardous installation or pipeline, or that hazardous substances consent should be refused, should not be overridden without the most careful consideration.