PART 1

EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE

REPORT OF THE SERVICE MANAGER PLANNING DEVELOPMENT

Applications to be determined by the Council as the Local Planning Authority

PS.431/2014

7 August 2014

SECTION 1 – SCHEDULE OF APPLICATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Item No.: 01

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 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 23 DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

LOCATION: Land Rear of, 41-43A Blackberry Lane, Four Marks, Alton

REFERENCE : 55302 PARISH: Four Marks

APPLICANT: Berkeley Homes (southern) Ltd

CONSULTATION EXPIRY :

14 July 2014

APPLICATION EXPIRY : 25 July 2014

COUNCILLOR(S): Cllr M C Johnson MBE, Cllr I Thomas

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL

This application has been included on the agenda as it is a departure from the adopted policies of the Local Plan and is being considered under the Interim Housing Policy Statement.

Site and Development Application site The site is accessed between two existing properties on Blackberry Lane (43 & 43a) and comprises an area of former agricultural/equestrian land and buildings and is largely overgrown with scrub, amounting to 0.7ha. Land to the south of the site is agricultural land. Blackberry Lane runs roughly parallel with the A31 and comprises a range of dwelling types, mostly detached and set in spacious plots. The area between Blackberry Lane and the A31 is developed with a number of cul-de-sacs forming backland development. The southern side of Blackberry Lane is defined by linear development with properties set in characteristic, elongated plots which, together with the treed backdrop and open countryside beyond lends a more semi-rural character to the lane. The access is within the settlement policy boundary (SPB) of Four Marks but the proposed dwellings would be on land outside the SPB. Proposed development The application is made in full and seeks permission for 23 dwellings following demolition of the existing buildings with access via Blackberry Lane, resulting in a residential density of 33dph. The proposal includes provision for 9 of the dwellings to be secured as affordable dwellings. The main proposals are:

• Full application

• Promoted under the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement (IHPS)

• 23 dwellings - 14 market units, 9 affordable units

• Density of 33dph

• 2-storey development

• Access from the existing entrance on Blackberry Lane

• Open market housing: 4 x 2 bed: 9 x 3 bed; 1 x 4 bed

• Affordable housing: 3 x 2 bed; 3 x 3 bed; (66% rented and 33% as shared ownership) The application is also supported by detailed consultant’s reports, including;

• Planning Statement

• Design and Access Statement

• Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy

• Transport Statement

• Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement

• Drainage Strategy

• Ecological Assessment

• Ground Appraisal Report Relevant Planning History No relevant planning history on the site.

Other current major housing applications in Four Marks/South Medstead settlement area 25256/032 - Land at Friars Oak Farm, Boyneswood Road, Medstead - Erection of 80

dwellings, including 32 affordable homes, garages, car parking, associated access, infrastructure, open space and landscaping. At their meeting on 26 June this year, members of the Council's Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a S.106 legal agreement.

55358/FUL - Land at Winchester Road (Adjoining 173), Four Marks - 136 residential

dwellings with associated works, access, parking, landscaping and open space. Currently under consideration.

55197/001 - Land East of, 20 - 38 Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead - 75

dwellings with associated access, landscaping, public open space and provision of allotments. Currently under consideration.

39009/003 - Land north of telephone exchange, Lymington Bottom Rd, South Medstead -

22 units. Recently submitted and currently under consideration. 55258/001 - Outline - Land North of Boyneswood Lane, Medstead - 51 dwellings.

Refused at 17 July 2014 committee. Development Plan Policies and Proposals East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014) CP1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development CP2 - Spatial Strategy CP10 - Spatial strategy for housing CP11 - Housing tenure, type and mix CP13 - Affordable housing on residential development sites CP16 - Protection and provision of social infrastructure CP18 - Provision of open space, sport and recreation and built facilities CP19 - Development in the countryside CP20 - Landscape CP21 - Biodiversity CP24 - Sustainable construction CP25 - Flood Risk CP26 - Water resources/ water quality CP27 - Pollution CP28 - Green Infrastructure CP29 - Design CP31 - Transport CP32 - Infrastructure CP24 - Sustainable construction

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (2006) - saved policies T3 - Pedestrians and Cyclists H14 - Other Housing Outside Settlement Policy Boundaries HE17 - Archaeological & Ancient Monuments P7 - Contaminated Land Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The NPPF was published in March 2012 and came into force with immediate effect. At the heart of it is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It states that the development plan is the starting point for consideration of planning applications, and planning applications must be determined in accordance with it, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.” (paragraph 49). Housing supply is addressed later in this report. Four Marks Village Design Statement - non statutory planning guidance that has been the subject of public consultation and therefore is a material planning consideration. EHDC Interim Housing Policy Statement (IHPS) - non-statutory interim planning policy to guide housing development applications until the Council is able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply or until a Local Plan (Allocations) is in place. Four Marks and Medstead Local Interim Planning Statement (LIPS) - non-statutory local supplement to the IHPS referred to above. Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments Housing Officer - This application proposes the inclusion of 9 affordable dwellings. There is a requirement under the Interim Policy Statement Housing to provide a minimum of 40% housing and under the JCS policy any part units will be dealt with by commuted sum. On 23 units the affordable housing requirement is 9.2, so a commuted sum for 0.2 units will be required. Using the recently published Guide to Developer Contributions May 2014, this equates to £5,472. The housing need figures, for rented accommodation in Four Marks are as follows (figures taken from Hampshire Homechoice Register):

1 bed: 265 2 bed: 128 3 bed: 50 4 bed: 18 Total: 461 Included within these figures are applicants who have a local connection with the parish (live, work or have family there). The JCS policy CP11 gives priority to local eligible households in need, bidding for new affordable rented homes through the Hampshire HomeChoice allocation process. However, a cascade to the wider EHDC District is also required to ensure that private funding can be secured to procure the affordable homes. The numbers of applicants with this local connection are currently: 1 bed: 39 2 bed: 15 3 bed: 3 4 bed: 5 Total: 62 In addition to the housing need for rented accommodation there are a further 14 households registered with the Help to Buy agent requiring intermediate housing in Four Marks. The affordable housing mix is proposed as 3 No. two bed houses and 3 No. three bed houses for affordable rent and 1 No. two bedroom house and 2 No. three bedroom houses as intermediate housing. This mix of accommodation size, type and tenure is appropriate to the affordable housing needs of the area. The affordable units should not be provided in clusters, but should be genuinely pepper-potted across the site. The applicant has taken the decision to provide the affordable housing centrally rather than distribute across the site. Whilst there is some scope on the existing layout to improve the integration of the affordable homes, on balance, I consider the benefits of doing this to be limited, in this instance. The Design and Quality of the affordable homes should be to HCA standards to ensure eligibility for grant, if available. The affordable homes and affordable land should be transferred to a Registered Provider with appropriate triggers for the delivery of the affordable homes and commuted sum secured in a suitable legal agreement. I support this application in its current form, subject to the content of this response. Hampshire Children's Services - Across Four Marks and Ropley primary schools, the forecast shows a shortfall in places. The proposed development will add to this projected shortfall. Consequently a contribution for additional primary places in line with the County Council's Developer Contributions Policy will be sought. This identifies a sum of £5,057 per dwelling = £116,311.

Landscape Officer - If this application is approved, enhanced landscape buffer planting will be required along the southern boundary, with native tree planting to reinforce the proposed native hedge. More tree planting is also recommended within the development, to be in keeping with the well treed landscape character of Four Marks - this may involve a reduction in housing density in the south west corner of the site. Arboricultural Officer - No objection providing a condition can be applied that requires all work to be carried out in strict accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan. Drainage Consultant - No objection in principle, subject to satisfactory drainage systems for both foul and surface water. The drainage strategy indicates that ground conditions are satisfactory for a conventional SUDS drainage system and calculations are required to confirm the system will cater for the 1:100 + 30% rainfall event and not increase flood risk elsewhere. Foul drainage will connect to the public foul sewer subject to Thames Water approval. In addition the existing public foul sewer will be required to be diverted and details should be agreed with Thames Water at an early stage. Drainage matters can be covered by standard conditions County Highways Officer - There is an existing gap between 43 and 43a which is proposed as the access point for the site. Blackberry Lane runs relatively parallel to the A31 and can access onto it via Lymington Bottom Road and Telegraph Road at each end of the road. Section 6 of the application form states that new public roads will be provided on site. The applicant should be aware that adoption of roads by the Highway Authority will require a Section 38 agreement. The site slopes away from the highway and therefore if the roads are to remain private, the applicant must provide appropriate cut-off drainage at the land ownership boundary in order to prevent highway water discharging onto the development. Drawing S859/P/02, revision F, shows that the existing hedge will be removed and replanted further from the highway in order to achieve the visibility splays. This is necessary to ensure highway safety and must be carried out before first occupation. The Transport Statement includes TRICS data to support the projected trip generation figures. With a projected increase of 13.3 and 16.14 extra vehicles in the AM and PM peak hours respectively, it is expected that the highway network can accommodate the extra traffic. In respect of parking, the application states that 48 spaces are to be provided and therefore the requirement has been fulfilled. Secure cycle storage is also provided by the applicant. Where there are gaps between the car parking space and the highway this encourages drivers to park overhanging the footway, causing a detriment to highway safety. These parking spaces should be brought forward to eliminate this gap.

In respect of the amended plans the Highways Officer has made the following observations: A Stage 2 Road Safety Audit has still not been provided and one is required before the application can be approved. A tracking drawing, 5281/100, has been submitted however the scale provided means that it is difficult to tell whether the vehicle scrapes or overruns the kerb, and no further information in respect of vehicles parked overhanging the footway has been provided. A Transport Contribution will be required in relation to the provision of 23 dwellings on the proposed site if the application is approved. The level of Transport Contribution relates directly to the impact of the proposed development through the formulaic approach set out in the Transport Contribution Policy, which attributes a cost per additional multimodal trip, based upon the known cost of providing transport infrastructure to support development. The trip rates for residential uses have been derived from assumed household occupancy levels. In this instance, an estimated multimodal trip rate of 7.0 trips per two or three-bedroom dwelling; and 10.2 trips per four-bedroom or larger dwelling at a cost per multi-modal trip rate of £535. The proposed development has 22 two or three-bedroom dwellings, and 1 four-bedroom or larger dwelling; this equates to a contribution of £87,847 for the site. Refuse for following reason: INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION From the information available it cannot be shown that the development can be accommodated in a manner that would not cause increased danger and inconvenience to highway users. Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service - Access to the proposed site should be in accordance with Hampshire Act 1983 Sect, 12 (Access to buildings within the site will be dealt with as part of the building regulations application at a later stage). Access roads to the site should be in accordance with Approved Document B5 of the current Building Regulations. The following recommendations are advisory only and do not form part of any current legal requirement of this Authority. Additional water supplies for fire fighting may be necessary. It is strongly recommend that consideration be given to include the installation of Automatic Water Suppression Systems (AWSS) as part of a total fire protection package to: - protect life - protect property, heritage, the Environment and our Climate - help promote and sustain Business Continuity; and - permit design freedoms and encourage innovative, inclusive and sustainable architecture. Environmental Health, Pollution - I have reviewed the information that has been provided and have no objections to the application.

Environmental Health, Contaminated Land - According to Environmental Health records the above application lies on and/or adjacent to potentially contaminated land with the following description: Pit/Quarry c. 1872 to c.1969, and Unknown Filled Land c.1981 to present. Further, radon protection was identified as being necessary for this development. I have no objections to planning permission being granted. However, with regard to the above information, with no desktop study provided by the applicant to assess the extent of potential contamination on site and as a development sensitive to contamination, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paras.120 and 121 the following standard planning conditions dealing with potentially contaminated land are recommended to be added to any Decision Notice: - Phased site investigation, including a desktop study - Validation of remedial works - Unsuspected contamination found on site County Archaeologist - The site is in an area of some archaeological interest with the projected line of the Roman road between Winchester and London running along the edge of the site. There is some potential therefore for archaeological deposits associated with the Roman road to be present on the site. Although the archaeological interest does not present any overriding concern I would advise that the assessment and recording of any archaeological deposits that might be present be secured through the attachment of a suitable condition to any planning consent that might be granted. For instance: That no development takes place until the applicant has secured a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification that has been submitted to and approved by the planning authority. In the first instance I would advise that this programme of work comprise a trenched evaluation to establish the character and location of any archaeological deposits that might be present. The results of this evaluation will inform any further archaeological mitigation that might be required. Crime Prevention Officer - A number of properties have access to the rear gardens via a communal rear access footpath. Some acquisitive crimes such as theft and burglary are often facilitated by easy access to the rear garden. To reduce the opportunities for this type of crime consideration should be given to providing access to the rear garden from within the curtilage of the property. If this is not desirable, to improve the security of the dwellings I recommend that any garden gate giving access onto the rear access footpaths are fitted with a key operated lock that can be operated from either side of the gate. To provide for the safety and security of residents and visitors an appropriated level of lighting should be provided throughout the development. Natural England - Statutory nature conservation sites – no objection based upon the information provided, Natural England advises the Council that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites.

Protected landscapes - having reviewed the application Natural England does not wish to comment on this development proposal. The development however, relates to the South Downs National Park. We therefore advise you to seek the advice of the National Park Authority. Their knowledge of the location and wider landscape setting of the development should help to confirm whether or not it would impact significantly on the purposes of the designation. They will also be able to advise whether the development accords with the aims and policies set out in the National Park management plan. Protected species - we have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species. County Ecologist - In summary, I consider that additional ecological information is required. I am concerned that the potential presence of the European protected hazel dormouse has been underestimated. This species evidently persists in the Four Marks area within a network of field boundary hedgerows, small woodland blocks, scrub and mature gardens and therefore I would argue that, in this context, the notion of suboptimal dormouse habitat is erroneous: any structured woody or dense herbaceous vegetation in this landscape has potential to harbour this species. The proposals entail the removal of scrub which, in my opinion, is perfectly capable of supporting this species. I therefore do not agree with the evaluation that the site offers negligible potential for dormouse and request that clarification is provided: strong justification will be needed to support the opinion of negligible potential. Should there be potential for the species to occur then a full Phase 2 presence/likely absence survey will be necessary. The site contains an active badger sett and copious evidence of badger activity. The report correctly identifies that the proposed works will necessitate the closure of the sett under licence but does not provide any firm detail on this option and its implications. Details of badger mitigation will be required prior to further determination. The report does not consider reptile species. Given the presence of suitable grassland/scrub edge habitat I would suggest that reptiles are a distinct possibility here. Further clarification is needed. Similarly, I would expect this overgrown site to support a range of nesting bird species – again no detail is provided. In response to further comments from the applicant's ecologist, additional comments have been added:

Hazel dormice Whilst any additional information is welcomed, I still maintain that further detail is required in order to justify the conclusion that this species would not occur. As I stated previously, from the results of historic and very recent surveys it is evident that dormice persist within the Four Marks/Medstead area within what may be considered by some to be suboptimal habitats. There are no areas of woodland to speak of within this immediate landscape and so, unsurprisingly, all recent dormouse records have come from hedgerows, including those within gardens. There are very recent records from sites only a few hundred metres away to the west, with a network of garden hedgerows in-between. Without the benefit of any photographic evidence within the ecology report or subsequent letter (there are undated photographs within the D&A Statement, seemingly taken in winter/early spring), I have only recent (2013) aerial photography to help me view the habitat within the site: aerial photographs appear to demonstrate that the habitat within the site is perfectly suitable for this species (unmanaged scrub, brambles) and is indeed similar to other sites which we know support dormice now. Whilst I fully recognise the habitat requirements, it is also true that our knowledge of what constitutes dormouse habitat is continually evolving and it is apparent that the species utilises a far broader range of habitats than once assumed (see Natural England’s recent guidance). Therefore, I recommend that additional detail is provided to fully justify the assumption that the species is not present. As a minimum, I would expect recent site photographs demonstrating the present condition of any scrub habitat on site. Given the increased likelihood of dormice occurring in this locale (many years of records; animals using so-called suboptimal habitats) I consider that it is perfectly reasonable to request further clarification where the proposals necessitate scrub removal: I have requested just such information for the majority of application sites within Four Marks and Medstead. It would also be useful to know whether scrub removal had taken place prior to the ecologist’s visit. If indeed any scrub had been cleared prior to the visit this may clearly have implications for the assessment of dormouse potential. There may also be issues with dormice should any consent not be implemented for two or more years, thereby meaning the site will become more suitable. I would also welcome some indication that any indirect impacts to this species have been considered. For instance, the letter suggests that the adjacent woodland may well support dormice but concludes that there will be no impact. The proposed layout shows that there are residential gardens backing directly onto the north-eastern edge of the woodland – might this not present some issues should dormice occur? It would be useful for the ecological assessment to reflect the current site layout proposals.

Badgers The additional information is welcomed, but again is not currently sufficiently detailed to allow the LPA to have confidence that any decision to grant permission would be taken with full knowledge of the impacts to this legally-protected species. Some brief details are provided of a proposed replacement sett within the south-east of the site, but this alone does not constitute a detailed badger mitigation strategy: whilst a sett closure licence application is indeed a separate process to planning, the LPA is nevertheless obliged to base its decisions on detailed knowledge of impacts, meaning that at the point of decision a detailed outline mitigation strategy should be provided. This should for instance include a site plan showing the location of proposed mitigation and a timetable of works to demonstrate how badgers will be accounted for during the development. Reptiles I am uncertain as to the suitability of the site for reptiles. My experience would suggest that even where a deep thatch is present common reptile species will occur and even thrive (deep grass thatch providing good basking opportunities as well as cover). Again, without any photographic evidence, I am left to review recent aerial photography which would appear to show perfectly suitable reptile habitat i.e. unmanaged grass/herbage/scrub interface within a suburban context which is known to support reptiles. I consider that further clarification is needed. NPPF and Circular 06/2005 require that planning decisions are based on full, up to date information and, in line with Natural England’s Standing Advice, full protected species information must be available before a decision can be made. Following this guidance, provision of this information should not be deferred as a condition of any planning permission. Without full information at the point of determination it is not possible for the LPA to ensure that any impacts are known and acceptable, to engage with the Habitats Regulations, and to be able to secure any necessary mitigation. In line with NPPF, Circular 06/2005 and the Natural England Standing Advice, I would recommend that this information is required prior to further consideration of this application. Thames Water - Surface Water Drainage - With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of groundwater. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. Where a developer proposes to discharge groundwater into a public sewer, a groundwater discharge permit will be required. Groundwater discharges typically result from construction site dewatering, deep excavations, basement infiltration, borehole installation, testing and site remediation.

There are public sewers crossing or close to the site. In order to protect public sewers and to ensure that Thames Water can gain access to those sewers for future repair and maintenance, approval should be sought from Thames Water where the erection of a building or an extension to a building or underpinning work would be over the line of, or would come within 3 metres of, a public sewer. Thames Water will usually refuse such approval in respect of the construction of new buildings, but approval may be granted in some cases for extensions to existing buildings. Thames Water would advise that with regard to sewerage infrastructure capacity, we would not have any objection to the planning application. Recycling and Refuse - This authority operates an alternate weekly kerbside collection of refuse (green bin) and recycling (black bin), plus a monthly glass collection at the closest point to the adopted highway. It is unclear from the information provided as to whether the access road will be adopted or not. If the access road is not adopted. A letter of indemnity will need to be provided by the developer initially and subsequently by the landowner, giving our contractor permission to access private land to collect the waste. The turning points will need to be sufficient to allow the waste collection vehicles to turn safely and to eliminate the need to reverse. Each property will require 1 x 240 litre refuse bin and 1 x 240 litre recycling bin, plus a 38 litre glass box. We offer an optional fortnightly chargeable garden waste collection service. Four Marks Cllr Thomas - This application is flawed in many ways, it is claimed by the applicant that the application is sustainable in economic, social and environmental aspects as per the NPPF para 7. However the application does not add to the economic value of the village. The social element of sustainability is similarly not proven, the density of this site is too dense far more cramped than any other site in Four Marks. The affordable housing is all squashed into one corner. An inspectors report advised that there should be a five year absorption period for large sites in places like Four Marks in order to maintain social cohesion – this has plainly not been the case here as the large site at the bottom of the road has not yet even been completed. Environmental element of sustainability has been ignored. I also note that there has been no study for dormice (often found in this village) or slow worms, newts or other species. The applicant asserts that this site is visually well contained; this is not the case. From Blackberry Lane there will be a vast expanse of concrete and road visible. From the fields behind the site this will appear in high relief. From Alton Lane as well as the footpaths the site would be clearly and intrusively visible.

This application does not attract local support, at two local consultations this site was deemed to be very low on a preference scale. There was no public consultation as was requested by residents – instead they were asked to invite the developer into their homes, which is not a suitable way to consult. A presentation was made to the Parish Council and I was invited to meet them but not with an officer present. Density levels are too high with no open space provision and affordable housing is located in one corner. This site would cause serious harm to the overall character of Four Marks because we have a village that is characterised by linear development. This application seeks to alter that character by creating backland development hence causing harm to the character of the area. The A31 may have a bus service to the station in Alton but it does not run early enough nor return late enough to be used by commuters so people need to use cars to get to work – thus making the site less sustainable. HCC has acknowledged that public transport is inadequate. The number of parking spaces on the site may be correct for the number of dwellings but there are no visitor spaces at all. This site should not be allowed to cause significant harm to existing residents by encouraging parking in Blackberry Lane. This would also reduce the visibility to dangerous levels for cars exiting the site. The junction at Telegraph Lane with Blackberry Lane and the A31 is known to be near capacity and already causes local problems so this site if approved would add to those problems. Local infrastructure is not keeping up with development so the capacity of the sewerage system within the network is very uncertain. Water supply can have such low pressure that most new houses have to have pumps installed to get water out of the taps so when the power fails which it frequently does, those reliant on pumps have no water either – not good in 2014. Infrastructure must be upgraded before houses are built. In conclusion most of the applicant’s arguments in favour of this scheme are shown to be flawed. As a village we do not want development on this side of Blackberry Lane. This side of the lane maintains the characteristic ribbon development which is the historical way the village grew and that character should be respected – it is not a natural development but a change in the very character of the village. Four Marks Parish Council - STRONGLY objects to this application. The proposed amendments have not addressed the concerns originally raised with reference to this application, and would like to re-iterate all the objections as follows: • Nearly all of the site sits outside the existing Settlement Policy Boundary, and would

protrude beyond the natural line. • The layout is too dense, particularly around the edge of the development, which is

inconsistent with policy, the garden sizes are inadequate and will cause overcrowding, overlooking, and lack of space for amenity.

• There is still little or no parking allocation for visitors, potentially resulting in street parking on the adjacent lane with no footpath or street lighting, causing hazards and safety issues previously not encountered;

• The proposed street scene is out of character with the surrounding properties;

• The development would be clearly visible from surrounding areas of open space, footpaths, and as far as Alton Lane, with no screening proposed, despite the Landscape Officers recommendations;

• The proposals with reference to the existing road side hedge for compliance for access, would go against the Village Design Statement, where retention of hedges is the aspiration;

• A development of this number would lead to increased traffic movements adding to the already over congested access from Blackberry Lane onto Telegraph Lane, and onto the A31, and no current traffic survey appears to have been carried out;

• Scant consideration has been paid to the wildlife in this area, particularly the proposed relocation of the badger sett. There is significant badger activity on site, providing an alternative habitat is not a sustainable alternative, the loss and disturbance to the ecology will undoubtedly drive the wildlife out altogether.

• The detrimental effect that this development would have on the social structure of the surrounding properties. Blackberry Lane still retains much of the look and character of the original settlement and these characteristics must be preserved.

• The plans are contrary to EHDC policies CP1 and CP29. Since the application was submitted, permission has been granted for an additional 80 houses in the area, the proposed development, by virtue of the committed number of additional dwellings already approved under the East Hampshire District Council’s (EHDC) Interim Housing Policy Statement (IHPS) for this settlement, would result in a disproportionate number of additional homes above and beyond the identified housing figure for Four Marks/South Medstead as set out in the recently adopted Joint Core Strategy (JCS). Having regard to the deficiencies and inadequacies in existing local infrastructure and services, this would have an adverse impact on the sustainability of the settlement. As such, the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policies CP1, CP2 and (non housing target aspects of) CP10 of the JCS and EHDC’s IHPS 2014. It is also important to note that in a recent consultation the Blackberry Lane SHLAA sites were the least preferred of all. Taking into account all the objections as detailed, Four Marks Parish Council requests REFUSAL of this application. Representations 137 letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns: a) increase in traffic and road safety issues exacerbated by use of the road by all users; b) difficulties in accessing the A31 will be exacerbated; c) Four Marks is overdeveloped with inadequate facilities including poor broadband; d) the site is outside the settlement policy boundary; e) development highly dependent/promotes car use; f) inappropriate density out-of-keeping with character of the area; g) local schools are oversubscribed; h) inadequate public transport; i) inadequate ecological mitigation measures;

j) sustainable construction measures not demonstrated; k) poor provision for refuse and recycling bins; l) inadequate car parking provided; m) insufficient landscaping to soften visual impact when viewed from countryside; n) proposal does not meet Lifetime Home standards; o) inadequate community facilities/services nearby to serve development - schools and

medical care; p) development would put strain on already overstretched utilities; q) inadequate provisions in place to improve existing sport and leisure facilities; r) proposal exceeds the 175 dwellings already approved in the area under the JCS; s) loss of hedgerow out-of-keeping with rural character of the lane; t) outside the settlement policy boundary on a greenfield site; u) no need for the development; v) no 7 day traffic survey has been carried out; w) layout and density is out-of-character with the area and adjoining properties; x) affordable homes in rural locations is not sustainable; y) lack of public open space within the development; z) risk associated with relocating a badger sett; za) affordable homes are not dispersed through the site; zb) loss of privacy to existing residents; zc) poor access to public transport; zd) loss of wildlife and natural habitats; ze) loss of green space; zf) Blackberry Lane has a distinct character, unspoilt by estate development as elsewhere in

Four Marks; zg) community opinion regards Blackberry Lane as least suitable for development; zh) proposal is contrary to the Village Design Statement; zi) loss of historic significance of the area; zj) opportunist development should not be allowed whilst the community develops a

neighbourhood plan; and zk) contravenes the NPPF and contrary to local planning policies. Determining Issues 1. Development plan and material considerations 2. Principle of development 3. Deliverability 4. Mix and type of housing 5. Impact on the character of the area 6. Access, movement, parking and highway safety 7. Impact on neighbouring amenity 8. Drainage and flood risk 9. Impact on ecology 10. Sustainable construction and energy efficiency 11. Impact upon heritage and archaeology 12. Infrastructure and developer contributions

Planning Considerations The key consideration in the determination of this planning application relates, firstly to the principle of housing on this site, given its countryside position having regard to the development plan and the lack of sufficient housing land supply within the district which has led to the publication of the Interim Housing Policy Statement. As part of the consideration of the principle of development aspects, including the amount of housing proposed, the location and sustainability of the site and the credentials of the application as a deliverable prospect are also key. 1. Development plan and material considerations As required by Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, applications must be determined in line with the adopted development plan for the area, unless material considerations apply. The development plan for EHDC comprises the 'saved' policies of the 2006 Local Plan: Second Review and the policies set out in the newly adopted Joint Core Strategy. A significant material consideration is the NPPF, particularly paragraph 49 which confirms that whilst the local planning authority does not have a five year housing supply relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date. East Hampshire District Council does not have a five year supply of housing. The latest position is a supply of 3.9 years, which is a shortfall of 935 dwellings (including a 5% buffer and cumulative backlog). The effect of paragraph 49 of the NPPF is that saved Local Plan policies and JCS policies which restrict market housing development within the countryside beyond designated settlement policy boundaries (SPBs) are, therefore, not considered up-to-date. Whilst many objectors to the application point to restrictions on development outside settlement policy boundaries as sufficient grounds for resisting the application and oppose encroachment into greenfield sites, it is not. There are two reasons for this, firstly, the impact of paragraph 49, and secondly, the Council recognises that the District's housing requirements, as now identified in the Joint Core Strategy, is significantly larger than has previously been the case that development outside the SPBs identified in the Local Plan: Second Review, on greenfield sites, will be essential to meet the new target. The identification of the essential Greenfield sites would be undertaken in the Local Plan Part 2 Allocations. However, the lack of a 5 year housing land supply brings added urgency to the need to release greenfield sites and effectively takes decisions of principle away from the plan led system and purely into the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as the NPPF sets out at paragraph 14. The Interim Housing Policy Statement In recognising the reliance on the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development the Council has adopted interim supplementary guidance ("Interim Housing Policy Statement”) referred to as the IHPS.

The IHPS establishes a list of criteria and considerations to be applied in determining applications for sites outside settlement policy boundaries relative to sustainability considerations in East Hampshire. A primary sustainable development principle in East Hampshire is the settlement hierarchy. This categorises settlements as market towns; large local service centres; small local service centres and other settlements with a settlement policy boundary. These categories relate to the level of facilities and services that are readily accessible. The IHPS takes forward the sustainability principles of the settlement hierarchy and is only supportive of sites which are immediately adjacent or contiguous to existing local plan settlement policy boundaries. This would ensure that planning is based on sound sustainability principles, whilst containing sprawl and maintaining compact urban envelopes. The IHPS is not intended to replace or frustrate any part of the plan-making process, but to guide development in its absence and to speed up the delivery of housing within the district. IHPS criteria closely reflect the sustainable development aims and objectives in the NPPF and in the adopted JCS with some additional local criteria which reflect the interim status / purpose of the policy. The IHPS includes a distinction between the housing allocation numbers within key settlements in the JCS; the IHPS does not include the word ‘minimum’. This is because the IHPS is a short term interim position. The Council considers it would be most sustainable to manage the amount of development in each of the target settlements over the 1-2 year period, whilst the Council does not have a five year supply of housing and a Part 2 Local Plan: allocation. To permit all the JCS housing target for the period up to 2028 in a short period is not a sustainable approach to development. Applications will need to comply with any remaining saved policies in the Local Plan: Second Review, where applicable. The intention of the IHPS is to manage development outside settlement policy boundaries so that it is allowed in locations at an appropriate scale or density, relative to the size, role and character of the settlement in question (Criterion 2) that would result in sustainable development. Criteria 3 and 4 seek to conserve townscape and landscape character, and secure adequate assessment for sites near to European protected species designations (5, 6), and support developments with safe and accessible environments (70. The policy seeks to secure a housing mix that is targeted to the local housing needs and that includes upwards of 40% affordable housing (8, 9). Concurrently, development is expected to make comprehensive and effective use of available land, with appropriate density, helping to control the amount of greenfield land likely to be developed and contain the geographic size of settlements (10, 11). Criteria 12, 13 are concerned with the deliverability of sites and developments coming forward under this policy. These require that development, individually or cumulatively, should not be constrained by the need for significant unplanned / funded off- site infrastructure; that there is evidence of deliverability and viability, having regard to necessary contributions towards infrastructure and affordable housing, and that the intention to develop is demonstrated by the applicant.

Criterion 13 sets out that any planning permission granted under the IHPS would need to commence within 2 years and this will be subject to a planning condition to maximise the likelihood of delivery of housing within the district in the short term. Here, it is important to reflect on the IHPS’ purpose which is clarified in the supporting text at Paragraph 5.2; “The Council wants new homes delivered in the right places to meet the needs of the District... the emphasis will be on sites being put forward under this Interim Policy Statement approach being deliverable at the time that they are put forward. Therefore detailed applications would be preferred and be accompanied by evidence of deliverability. They should not, for example, be dependent upon delivery of significant off-site infrastructure; and should be fully in the applicant’s control. Those proposing development of a site are therefore encouraged to demonstrate a strong desire and willingness to develop it in the short term, with the necessary evidence to back up such statements.” Local Interim Planning Statement The Council is undertaking public consultation events in the main settlements to seek views on sustainability issues affecting that settlement and which housing development sites might best meet local housing needs and place shaping aspirations. The results of the consultations are being collated and combined with an overview of the sustainability profiles of each of the settlements in Local Interim Planning Statements (LIPS). The Four Marks and Medstead LIPS was adopted by Council at the meeting held on 19 June 2014 and is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The LIPS have two purposes. They are an initial options consultation under Regulation 18 of the Planning Regulations, the results of which will feed into the Part 2 Local Plan: Allocations.. Additionally, the LIPS provide a local supplement to the district wide IHPS referred to above, by adding local detail on what sustainable development should look like in each settlement The LIPS for Four Marks and Medstead followed two consultation events. These events were held on Wednesday 14 May (5.30pm - 8pm) at the Four Marks Village Hall and on Thursday 15 May (2pm - 4.30pm) at Medstead Village Hall. Approximately 360 people attended the events. The consultation events followed a consistent format which is being used in the preparation of all the LIPS, including the use of display boards containing a housing target map of the whole district, settlement profiles on economy, social facilities, demographics, environmental assets, Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) maps and a large scale aerial map of the settlement area. Those attending the events were able to express a preference on the SHLAA sites and their preferred infrastructure needs as well as leaving comments and feedback. Planning and Community Officers were present to give advice and monitor the expressed preferences.

As the events are an initial step in the Part 2 Local Plan Allocations work, for which there is no regulatory format to follow, they are valuable snapshots of community input. The progress on the Part 2 Local Plan will build on this, together with future community consultation events and use the up to date evidence that already exists for the JCS eg. transport capacity, Sustainability Appraisal, Green Infrastructure Strategy, housing needs, environmental assets etc. In terms of the housing site choices, there are a large number of options in the Four Marks settlement area, which is an indicator of the popularity of the area with developers and the relatively unconstrained nature of the environment. The data collected shows that there are two clear preferences in Four Marks and South Medstead. The site FM014 which is at the western edge of Four Marks with direct access onto the A31 Winchester Road has the highest preference level with 141 ‘votes’ across the two events (75 at the Four Marks event and 66 at the Medstead event). This site is now the subject of a current application for 136 dwellings (Ref: 55358/FUL). The second highest preference was for MED004 (Friars' Oak) with 71 ‘votes’ across the two events (49 at the Four Marks event and 22 at the Medstead event). It was resolved to grant planning permission for this development subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement at the Council's Planning Committee on 26 June this year. The only other sites with any significant preference are MED001 and MED002, which are, in effect, one large area around the rail station on the north side of the railway line. The site proposed under this planning application received very few supporters, with a total of just four votes. The community feedback on infrastructure and facilities showed an overwhelming preference for improved infrastructure to deal with flooding, telecoms and water/sewerage. Broadband speeds continue to be below national averages. There have been sewer improvements in Four Marks over the last 15 years; however, the continued growth means the pipes and the Alton Sewage works are reaching capacity, requiring upgrade. The high elevation of Four Marks also means water pressures are relatively poor. The water-related issues are most pronounced north of the railway line. At the Four Marks event there was also a strong preference for community facilities. Some recent improvements have been made to the tennis and bowls facilities but the village hall is in need of updating and the recreation ground and associated buildings have been identified for improvement in the Community Plan. The access onto the A31 and the traffic using the narrow roads in the Basingstoke M3 direction are a major issue for Four Marks and South Medstead, particularly at peak times. The A31 junctions at Lymington Bottom and Telegraph Lane are considered to be a safety issue, whilst the narrow rail line crossings at Lymington Bottom Road and Boyneswood Road are seen as bottlenecks for vehicles and a safety issue for pedestrians.

The LIPS also cross references other community engagement that has taken place recently, including the Four Marks Community Plan. All the analysis is clear that Four Marks/South Medstead is an area characterised by commuting and people recently moving into the area resulting a community that lacks some roots and community cohesion. The continued drive for relatively large scale development levels in the settlement is likely to continue that characteristic. Also of relevance is that Four Marks and Medstead parish areas were designated as a Neighbourhood Planning Area at full Council on 19 June 2014. A Neighbourhood Plan group is in place and will be an appropriate body to undertake the future planning of the area in accordance with the Localism Act. The Neighbourhood Plan group, with the support of the Local Planning Authority, is an appropriate body to consider which are the most sustainable sites in the area and ensure that the social issues in the area are fully taken into account in the sustainable community of the future. Housing supply considerations In spite of recent consents, there remains a significant shortfall in housing supply for the district. This is currently assessed as 935 dwellings. The requirement for maintaining a 5 year supply (plus buffer) is a rolling target which is imposed on Councils through central government policy. The spatial strategy set out by the JCS and reflected in the IHPS is to distribute new housing throughout the key settlements within the district outside the South Downs National Park in accordance with the settlement hierarchy as follows: Alton – 700 new homes Horndean - 700 new homes Clanfield – 200 new homes Liphook – 175 new homes Four Marks/South Medstead - 175 new homes Rowlands Castle - 150 new homes Other villages outside the South Downs National Park – 150 new homes This strategy focuses the majority of new housing to Alton, Horndean and Clanfield, which are classified as market town, large local service centre and small local service centre respectively. Smaller settlements such as Four Marks/South Medstead which is defined as a Small Local Service Centre are intended to accommodate a proportionate amount of housing. The JCS observes that this scale of settlement will; “have a more limited range of services but are suitable locations to accommodate some new development. These centres will have different roles depending on their size, but they will all play an important part in the life of their communities. They will be maintained to ensure that they provide basic food and grocery shopping, supported by a limited choice and range of other shops plus a range of non-retail services and community uses. Modest development to meet local needs for housing, employment, community services and infrastructure will secure their continuing vitality and ensure thriving communities.”

Thus far planning permissions have been granted for a potential total of 190 dwellings under the IHPS in Four Marks / South Medstead. This includes:

• 69 units on land to the west of Lymington Farm Industrial Estate, Lymington Bottom Road, Four Marks

• 3 units on land to rear of Woodfield, Windsor Road in Medstead

• 80 units on land at Friars Oak Farm, Boyneswood Road, Medstead

• 38 units on land west of Lymington Bottom Road The identified figure of 175 for the settlement is, therefore, already surpassed. In considering the proposal subject of this application against the NPPF, relevant saved policies of the second review local plan and the JCS, the site does not seem to have any overriding environmental constraints. If permission were to be granted, it would be in outline and there is, therefore, no guarantee that the development would be brought forward faster than awaiting the allocation of sites through the next stage of the local plan. In its outline form limited weight, therefore, arises in favour of the scheme in relation to the timing of the delivery of new housing locally in accordance with paragraph 5.3 of the IHPS and the whole spirit of the IHPS. Whilst it may be possible to get from outline to full permission and delivery of dwellings on the ground within 2 years, this is a challenge, particularly as potentially significant new homes are already going to be built to supply the local market. There are notable benefits of securing further affordable housing provision to meet identified local needs. In this respect, the Housing Officer is supportive in principle and points to present levels of need. However, as the scheme would do no more than comply with the policies in the JCS on the provision of affordable housing, the respective contribution does not add significant weight arguments relating to housing need generally. Simply put, any residential scheme should now be expected, unless otherwise justified, to meet the 40% threshold while the IHPS seeks this level as a minimum. Overall, the scheme would make a contribution to housing supply requirements and towards addressing the shortfall within the district. Addressing this shortfall and the contribution this site would make towards doing so, should be afforded weight in the decision as to whether this proposal is sustainable development. 2. Principle of development As mentioned earlier, the development must have regard to the NPPF. In the absence of a five year housing land supply, neither the recently adopted Joint Core Strategy nor the saved policies of the local plan can be relied upon in determining the principle of development for applications for housing. Instead, as with similar recent applications, it should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as the NPPF sets out at paragraph 14. which confirms that, where decisions are to be taken and the relevant policies of the development plan are out-of-date, permission should be granted unless:

• Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

• Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted As there are no specific policies in the NPPF to indicate that such development should necessarily be restricted, the first point is perhaps the most pertinent. The recognised benefits of the proposal include the provision of housing, both market and affordable, for which there is an identified need. These are clear economic and social benefits. For permission to be refused, the adverse impacts of the development need to significantly and demonstrably outweigh these benefits. Quite apart from the consideration of any adverse impact being caused to local character, ecology, flood risk and transport, which will be considered later in the report, there are three preliminary issues to assess in determining the principle of development. i) The adopted housing figure for Four Marks/South Medstead ii) Is the proposal sustainable development e.g. Locational suitability, impact on

economic, environmental and social factors? iii) Consideration of alternative sites i) The adopted minimum housing figure for Four Marks/South Medstead It should not be ignored, that in meeting the district-wide housing need up to 2028, the identified housing distribution for this settlement is a minimum of 175 units. This figure is set out in the spatial strategy of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) and reflected in the IHPS. This amount of housing is based on and proportionate to, the identified settlement hierarchy set out in the JCS. Four Marks/South Medstead is identified as constituting a Level 3 settlement - a small local service centre, having a more limited range of services but which can accommodate some new development. The adoption of the JCS in May this year followed a Local Plan Inspector's thorough testing of the housing figures for soundness. Consequently, the distribution of housing numbers for each settlement carries significant weight in the determination of a planning application for residential development under the IHPS. Whilst the JCS establishes the settlement distributions as minimums, the IHPS establishes them as maximums for the very reason that the IHPS purpose is to provide a five year land supply within a short period of time (approximately two years). Having more than 175 units front-loaded within the first couple of years of a plan period up to 2028 would not be a sustainable form of development, as it could have the potential to fundamentally change the established scale of the settlement within a very short space of time. Four Marks/South Medstead has been characterised as a place of housing growth for commuters, where facilities have not kept pace and the social cohesion of the village has primarily been around what many people feel to be fruitless attempts to control what seems like continual growth. On top of this, the necessary infrastructure to support additional development is unlikely to be operational to coincide with the arrival of the new occupants.

Therefore, whilst the scheme is not significantly in excess of the 175 units set for Four Marks/South Medstead, the proposal would, nonetheless, result in additional strain on local infrastructure and could have a negative social impact on the sustainability of the settlement. Locational suitability In terms of the location, the application site's access is within the settlement policy boundary (SPB), but the housing itself lies outside and adjacent the SPB and existing residential development on Blackberry Lane. JCS Policy CP19 seeks to control development outside SPBs. Nonetheless, for the purposes of the IHPS, officers consider that this site is compliant in terms of its position relative to the SPB. The site is accessible to the facilities in Four Marks and this weighs in support of the scheme. This particular site is near the commercial services within Four Marks, found along Winchester Road and are within a 10 minute walk time. The site is within the same walk time to regular bus services running along Winchester Road. Reference has been made to the adequacy of the bus service to provide a commuter service and that this tempers the sustainability argument, as the site will be car dependent for commuters. However, insofar as the proposal relates to the service, the site must be regarded as sustainable. Consideration of alternative sites Some objectors refer to the lack of a plan-led approach to dealing with development and that alternatives, with preference to “more appropriate Brownfield sites inside the settlement area” or other SHLAA/current application proposals to be considered. The IHPS echoes the strategy pursued by the Joint Core Strategy which will, in any event, seek to allocate (predominantly greenfield) land to secure housing targets. In respect of alternative sites, there are other applications offering development totalling 233 dwellings presently lodged with the authority (as set out in the Planning History section above) but which have not yet reached the same stage of consideration. Each case must be assessed on its merits and for the purposes of the NPPF and development plan, there is no sequential assessment requirement for housing sites when determining planning applications. Notwithstanding other sites in the area may be preferential in one or other respects and the fact that the public consultation exercise carried out in preparation for the Four Marks and Medstead Local Interim Planning Statement (LIPS) concluded a preference for other sites within Four Marks, it falls to the Council to determine this application on its individual merits, having regard to all material considerations. It is acknowledged, however, that the consultation event resulted in a strong preference for a site in Winchester Road and also for a site that has recently been granted planning permission (Friars Oak). Poor support was given by residents for development on this current application site through the recent consultation exercise. The LIPS document is a useful indicator of public preferences for development sites and infrastructure needs.

However, it does not form part of the statutory development plan and as such, no more than modest weight can be attributed to it in the determination of any planning application. However, there is a broader point to raise in relation to the suitability of alternative sites and the achievement of a district-wide five year land supply. Officers readily accept that a fundamental principle of Planning is that each case has to be considered on its own merits and that there is no requirement for an applicant to demonstrate theirs is the most sustainable location or development. However, it is the case that the JCS and IHPS primarily focus development towards the market towns and large scale service centres for obvious reasons (existing infrastructure, potentially more public transport connectivity, less scope to detrimentally impact on an established scale of settlement by readily absorbing a proportionately higher number of units). The Council has received and is currently considering, planning applications for large residential development in these much larger settlements which it could be argued are best placed to accommodate such developments in pursuit of a five year housing land supply. The totality of unit numbers proposed in these proposals combine to significantly exceed the current deficit in the Council's five year housing land supply. Whilst there is no guarantee that they will all be approved, it is worthy of note that greater numbers within larger settlements are soon to be determined by the Council. It is considered that this further reduces the need to oversail the figure of 175 for Four Marks/South Medstead (having already 190 permitted units) with an additional 23 units which would take housing numbers in the settlement to 213, which equates to 22% over supply for the settlement. So whilst this site and the development proposed would contribute towards a district wide five year housing land supply, it would have a disproportionate impact in the short term on the sustainability of Four Marks/South Medstead. The principle of development, to the extent that it would exceed the identified and proportionate housing number for Four Marks/South Medstead, is not, therefore, accepted. 3. Deliverability While the NPPF requires LPAs to maintain a five year supply of housing sites (plus an additional buffer) it clarifies that; “To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans.”

Nonetheless, paragraph 5.2 of the IHPS states that “The Council wants new homes delivered in the right places to meet the needs of the District; the emphasis will be on sites being put forward under this Interim Policy Statement approach being deliverable at the time that they are put forward. Therefore detailed applications would be preferred and be accompanied by evidence of deliverability. They should not, for example, be dependent upon delivery of significant off-site infrastructure; and should be fully in the applicant’s control. Those proposing development of a site are therefore encouraged to demonstrate a strong desire and willingness to develop it in the short term, with the necessary evidence to back up such statements.” There are no evident barriers to the development coming forward within a standard time period, albeit the IHPS seeks to speed up house building by restricting the period of implementation to 2 years. The planning application has been submitted in full, which lends weight to the deliverability of the scheme. 4. Mix and type of housing The development includes 40% affordable housing which reflects local needs in terms of unit sizes and tenures and satisfies the policy requirement set out in Core Strategy policy, CP13. The affordable mix includes 4 x 2 bedroom houses and 5 x 3 bedroom houses. The tenure split would secure 33% of affordable units as shared ownership and 66% for affordable rent. Market housing also provides a reasonable range of unit sizes given the scale of the development and of 14 market units, includes 4 x 2 bedroom houses, 9 x 3 bedroom houses and 1 x 4 bedroom houses. The overall mix by size is; 8 x 2 bedroom (35%) 14 x 3 bedroom (61%) 1 x 4 bedroom (4%) This mix provides a respectable range of housing, balanced towards a high proportion of smaller and medium sized units. The proposed layout is for a mix of terraced, semi-detached and just the four bedroomed property being detached. The scheme meets the goals of JCS policy CP10. It also reflects the goals of the recent Strategic Housing Market Assessment, which identifies strong demographic pressures towards decreasing average household size and an ageing population adding demand for downsizing. This is a material benefit that adds some weight in favour of the scheme. The 9 affordable units would be grouped in the southern corner of the site. Policy CP13 does require affordable housing to be genuinely pepper-potted through sites. This, then, weighs against the scheme as set out.

5. Impact on the character of the area The scheme includes housing with a density of approximately 33 dwellings per hectare. In assessing this application, careful consideration has been given to the character of the area and how the proposed development would relate to it. Blackberry Lane retains a form that allows the origins of the settlement to be understood. The mainly linear form with detached properties set in elongated plots is clearly seen in a map of the area. To the northern side of Blackberry Lane and elsewhere in Four Marks, this character has been diluted by late twentieth, early twenty-first century residential development. This has tended towards anonymous estate layouts and design of higher density. The area to the southern side of Blackberry Lane has not seen the backland, cul-de-sac forms of development that are more prevalent to the north/Winchester Road area and retaining the linear form, density level and variety to the architecture is considered important. The NPPF (Chapter 7) emphasises the need for good design in development. Paragraph 60 refers to the need to reinforce local distinctiveness. Paragraph 64 states, “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an areaR” The proposed house types are reasonably varied and detailed of their form and as inferred above, not too dissimilar to other recent developments in the settlement. The distinction with this site is the weight given to the context of the site on Blackberry Lane and also on the new policy environment. In this vein, the proposal is considered to fall short of the requirements of the design policy of the JCS, Policy CP29. It states proposals should demonstrate exemplary standards of design that respect the area’s particular characteristicsR. And should take account of local village design statements that identify local character and distinctiveness. The proposal has a generic vernacular form, lent primarily through the use of brick and tiles in the palette of materials. This, though, is considered insufficient to demonstrate that the proposal will conserve or enhance the character of the area. A lower density scheme, that adds to the architectural variety and which is informed by an appreciation of the area’s historical development, may be regarded more favourably. This approach is encapsulated in the Four Marks Village Design Statement which states new development should maintain the settlement form and should follow the pattern of low density characteristic; new development should be designed in a way that respects and maintains the character and form of the settlement. The higher density level necessitates a harder edge, which would erode the soft backdrop to housing fronting Blackberry Lane and the form of development will be harmful in views towards Blackberry Lane from Alton Lane to the south-east. The sub-urbanised nature of the access, required to provide necessary visibility, will further dilute the semi-rural character of Blackberry Lane.

The IHPS (criterion 10) favours an approach, whereby development maximises the potential of a site and schemes should make efficient use of the site. Preliminary advice had put emphasis on this criterion. However, there is a need for proposals to be balanced against criterion 11 of the IHPS, which requires proposals to demonstrate a density and design approach that is sensitive to the local character. It is considered that the greater weight should be placed on the need to conserve local character. The need to provide housing to meet the district’s shortfall should not be achieved at the expense of local distinction and there is a sufficient policy base in the NPPF and the JCS to oppose the application on this issue. Concerns have been expressed regarding the landscape impact and that the site will be visible from a public footpath and from Alton Lane to the south. The Landscape Officer has also reiterated concerns that the plans do not show sufficient planting on the southern boundary to soften the visual impact from the south. The proposed development sits in close association with existing residential development and whilst the concerns regarding the suitability of the design approach have been expressed above, it is not considered that the proposal results in overriding harm to the landscape. Where there are views to the site, they are brief, glimpsed views and intervening vegetation obscures most vantage points and the proposal is not therefore considered to be demonstrably at odds with JCS policy CP20. 6. Access, movement and highway safety Local highway network Access to the site would be through the existing access, which is shared with existing properties fronting Blackberry Lane. It would be a cul-de-sac development. A number of objectors point to the scale of the development and the increased pressure this places on the junction of Telegraph Lane and the A31. It is accepted that this junction causes inconvenience however; the TRICS data indicates an increase of 13.3 - 16.1 extra vehicles in the AM and PM peak hours. The highways advice is that the highways network can safely accommodate the additional traffic. Parking The application includes provision for 48 parking spaces (the parking standards requires 47) and, therefore, the proposal satisfies the requirement. The parish council refers to concerns that no additional visitor space provision is made which may put pressure on the need to park on Blackberry Lane. It should be highlighted that the parking standards incorporate provision for visitors and, therefore, officers are satisfied that adequate parking provision has been made. Amended plans have not satisfied the Highways Officer that tracking of refuse vehicles is possible without hitting parked cars at units 1, 2, 6, 21 and 22. Further information on this aspect is, therefore, being sought.

Access An initial concern was expressed that no pedestrian footpath was proposed to the side of the access with Blackberry Lane, which is not considered acceptable. Revised plans do now show the incorporation of a footpath with a tactile dropped-surface crossing-point on both sides of Blackberry Lane. The existing hedge fronting 43/43a Blackberry Lane will be moved back to accommodate both the footpath and the necessary visibility sightlines of 2.4m by 43m. Some objectors and the parish council consider that these works will have a sub-urbanising effect on the character of the lane. These concerns are noted; however the proposals include the retention of a hedgerow which is consistent with the character of the lane. The addition of the footpath and bell-mouth entrance would not significantly impact upon the integrity of the character and appearance of the streetscene. A Stage 2 Road Safety Audit has not been carried out and whilst it is preferred to secure this prior to the determination of application, sufficient detail has been provided by the applicant to demonstrate the access can be achieved safely and, therefore, detailed matters pertaining to safety of the proposed road (which would be adopted) can be dealt with by condition. 7. Impact on neighbouring amenity Some concern has been expressed over the impact of the new dwellings on the amenity of existing properties fronting the site with Blackberry Lane. Two of the new properties are side-onto the rear elevations of 43 and 43a Blackberry Lane and have a wall-to-wall distance (excluding the proposed attached garages) of a minimum of 18m. Existing and proposed boundary screening will further soften the relationship but it would not result in undue loss of light or privacy. Units 4 and 5 do have their rear elevations facing directly towards 41 Blackberry Lane (and to the side towards the rear garden of 39a Blackberry Lane). The wall-to-wall distance here, though, is approximately 30m which, again, does not result in excessive loss of privacy or light. Permitted development rights could be withdrawn from properties which could see later insertion of windows, which might overlook properties but in its current form, the relationship between existing and proposed and between all the new dwellings is considered acceptable and compliant with JCS Policy CP27. Clearly, an application of this nature introduces a significant change to the use and appearance of the land and the development brings associated impacts in terms of noise, lighting and traffic. Whilst there will be a degree of impact locally, the proposal would not result in unacceptable loss of privacy or amenity. 8. Drainage and flood risk The site is within Flood Zone 1 (low probability, identified as having a less than 1 in 1000 year risk of flooding). However, proposals must demonstrate that the development will not increase the potential for flood risk elsewhere as a result of the addition of hard surfaces. The applicant’s drainage strategy indicates that ground conditions are satisfactory for a conventional Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS). Standard conditions requiring the system will cater for 1 in 100 year rainfall event without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

With respect to foul drainage, the scheme will connect to the existing foul sewer. Thames Water has advised that there is infrastructure capacity in the sewerage system. This issue demonstrates the deliverability of the scheme, unencumbered by any significant infrastructure provision constraints. 9. Impact on ecology The site impacts on protected species and this is, consequently, an issue that needs to be addressed prior to any permission being granted. The NPPF and JCS Policy CP21 require proposals to demonstrate that biodiversity interests are maintained or enhanced. The application was supported with an ecological assessment report which initially raised some queries from the County Ecologist and subsequent comments from the applicant's ecologist failed to convince that sufficient research on key species had been undertaken. Hazel dormice From historic and recent survey work in the Four Marks area, it is known that dormice populate the area, utilising hedgerows in the absence of preferred woodland habitat. The nature of the site; unmanaged grass/scrub/brambles, is ideal to support hazel dormice, so survey work and additional information is needed to evidence the assumption that the species is not present. It should also incorporate details of any indirect impact on this species and if applicable, mitigation and enhancement measures. Badger A badger sett and badger activity have been recorded on the site. The proposal will require the closure of the sett (under licence) and the applicant proposes to mitigate this by constructing a four chambered artificial sett within the south-east corner of the site. The artificial sett will be created prior to the closure of the existing sett. All works would be undertaken under licence and agreement with Natural England. Whilst this may offer a satisfactory resolution, it does not amount to a fully-detailed badger mitigation strategy. Information regarding timing and protection measures during construction and evidence of the suitability of the artificial sett design would enable the Council to base a decision on detailed information. Reptiles It is considered that the ecological information provided is too dismissive of the potential of the site to host reptile species which supports grass/scrub and buildings which is suitable for reptiles. Further information/survey work regarding reptiles is needed. The gaps in the information before the Council give sufficient grounds for concern regarding the potential harm to protected species. The application has not satisfied the criteria of JCS Policy CP21 neither does the information provide sufficient detail regarding enhancement measures for the protected species as set out in Policy CP21.

10. Sustainable construction and energy efficiency Under JCS Policy CP24, the development will have to meet Code 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, plus an additional 10% in the way of energy consumption/efficiency savings or equivalent and a waste management area on site for refuse/recycling facilities. This could be appropriately secured by way of a planning condition to ensure the development meets the requirements of Policy CP24. Policy CP11 of the JCS seeks the provision of Lifetime Homes Standards. An appropriate condition would be required if permission were granted. 11. Impact upon heritage and archaeology Heritage The proposal does not directly affect any heritage assets. The history of the settlement is relatively modern, early twentieth century and it was at this time that the linear form, inter-war colonial style homes emerged. Whilst the proposal is not considered to directly harm this heritage, it fails to take opportunities to reflect this local distinction within the design approach which reinforces the concerns regarding the suitability of the design set out above. Archaeology The County Archaeologist has highlighted the proximity of the site to the Winchester - London Roman road which may result in archaeological deposits being present on the site. Whilst there is not considered to be a direct impact on archaeology remains, a condition in the event of an approval requiring an archaeological evaluation and methodology would be required. 12. Infrastructure and developer contributions The three tests as set out in Regulation 122(2) require S.106 agreements to be: (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly-related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. As the application proposes the provision of 23 additional residential units, in order for the development to be acceptable in planning terms, a S.106 agreement is required to secure the following: − integrated transport measures (£87,847.00) − environmental improvements (£12,824.00) − public open space towards recreational playing space and children's play space

(£31,050.00)

The HCC Education officer has responded and advised that contributions are necessary towards supporting and expanding primary school facilities. A contribution per unit is sought and would provide a substantial but commensurate contribution to local requirements, in line with County Council guidance on contributions - £116,311.00 towards primary places. A S.106 legal agreement covering any planning permission would also secure the following: - provision and maintenance in perpetuity of landscape planting and ecology buffers - matters of general management and maintenance in perpetuity of other common areas

including of the access and estate roads, surface water drainage - tenure split for affordable housing, - occupancy criteria stipulating a cascade for occupancy of affordable rent units within the

settlement, then the parishes of Medstead and Four Marks and then wider to the district. The legal agreement is at an advanced stage but not finalised at the time of writing this report. Members will be updated on the situation at the meeting. Response to Parish/Town Council Comments The parish councils concerns regarding density levels and garden sizes are noted and addressed above. Similarly, concerns regarding loss of hedgerow to the roadside to achieve visibility splays will result in an erosion of the semi-rural character of the lane. Concerns regarding difficulties accessing the A31 are noted; however the site is considered to be sustainably located. Concerns regarding density levels apply to character and appearance but do not extend to overriding harm in terms of highway implications. Concerns regarding over-supply of housing have been addressed above and result in the first reason for refusal. Conclusion The site is in an area of countryside where policies of constraint apply. The NPPF and JCS Policy CP1 advocate a presumption in favour of sustainable development unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In the light of the IHPS, the proposal has the potential to bring forward a deliverable scheme which would contribute towards the shortfall in the Council's five year housing land supply. In addition, nine of the proposed dwellings would be affordable, which contributes towards an identified need in the settlement. The scheme is not significantly constrained by the need for infrastructure provision, ground contamination or drainage issues which must count in favour of the application. It is also in a location that is sustainable, in terms of its relationship to services in Winchester Road. The applicant has agreed to a range of contributions that mitigate the impact of the development in the form of a legal agreement incorporating provision towards environmental improvements, public open space, highway improvements and expansion of primary school places.

Some weight must be given to the contribution of the scheme in making up the deficit in housing supply across the district. However, regard is given to the impact of the proposal on top of existing permitted housing provision on the infrastructure of the small local service centre. The development would take new housing numbers on 'greenfield' sites in the settlement to 213. The local plan inspector identified 175 as a minimum figure for the settlement over the plan period (to 2028) and it is considered that over-supply at an early stage in the plan is not a sustainable approach to development. Applications currently under consideration by the Council, focused on more sustainable settlements ie market towns and larger local service centres, have the potential to far exceed the deficit and buffer required to achieve a five-year housing land supply. The benefits of housing provision (including affordable dwellings) in meeting the district wide shortfall in provision are outweighed by the impact of over-supply at the early stage of the plan period on the small local service centre. The site is in an area which has a more linear and semi-rural character, distinct from other areas of Four Marks and which stands as an important part of the settlement's history. This is fragile and susceptible to inappropriate forms of development. The proposed scheme fails to integrate a design approach that is sensitive to this character or which represents an appropriate density. The proposal would, therefore, materially harm the character of the area which is contrary to the NPPF, Joint Core Strategy and the IHPS. Furthermore, issues regarding highway safety and ecology have not been satisfied, resulting in additional reasons to reject the application. RECOMMENDATION REFUSAL for the following reasons: 1 The level of development proposed would not be consistent with

maintaining and enhancing the character of the settlement but instead would place undue pressure on the limited range of local services in this small local service centre. This would be at odds with the spatial strategy for the district which seeks to reinforce a settlement's role and function. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CP1, CP2 and (non housing target aspects of) CP10 of the Joint Core Strategy and the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement 2014.

2 The proposed development has a density and scale out-of-keeping with this part of Blackberry Lane. Together with the form and design of the dwellings, the proposal would result in a uniform and suburban development that fails to conserve or enhance the local character and appearance of the area. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the NPPF (in particular paragraphs 56-66), the Joint Core Strategy, in particular Policy CP29 and the guidance contained in the Four Marks Village Design Statement.

3 Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that protected species including hazel dormice, badgers and reptiles will not be harmed as a result of the development and insufficient details regarding any appropriate mitigation measures increases, concerns that the proposal could have an unacceptable impact. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the NPPF (in particular paragraph 118) and Joint Core Strategy Policy CP21.

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 applicant was updated with issues after the initial site visit.

CASE OFFICER: Jon Holmes 01730 234243 ———————————————————————————————————————

SECTION 1 Item 01 Land Rear of, 41-43A Blackberry Lane, Four Marks, Alton

Site layout

SECTION 1 Item 01 Land Rear of, 41-43A Blackberry Lane, Four Marks, Alton

Front and rear indicative elevations – Plots 14-17

SECTION 1 Item 01 Land Rear of, 41-43A Blackberry Lane, Four Marks, Alton

Front and rear indicative elevations – Plots 6-8